Structuralism

[phk]

Structuralism

Mark Glazer©

It is probably best to approach the term "structuralism" through an attempt to understand the concept of "structure" within this theoretical point of view. Without an understanding of this fundamental concept, it is difficult to arrive to an understanding of the intellectual movement referred to as structuralism. Traditionally the major problem with the term structure has been its concreteness. The word refers to phenomena, e.g. buildings, which are most physical in their essence. Needless to say, structures in structuralism are not neither concrete nor physical. Structures refer to mental models built after concrete realty. Furthermore these models are not obvious but demand an understanding of hidden, or deep aspects, of the matter at hand. Following this approach structuralism is an attempt to build models which can help understand or, as structuralists, would put it explicate the materials at hand.
The most difficult aspect of structuralism is that these structures are not based on concrete or physical phenomena as they are in biological or other sciences but based on cultural realities such kinship organization or tales. These cultural realities are mental as are the structures which explicate them. These structures and their structuralist models exist only in human minds, and not in nature as e.g. a Marxist would claim.

There are many structuralists including Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Lévi-Strauss. It is even possible to claim that some important social and/or psychological theoreticians and certain sciences are structuralist in character because what they do is to build models of psychological or social reality. This seems to be particularly true of Sigmund Freud and Carl Marx. In all of the above a distinction is made between what may be called surface (consciousness, superstructure) structure and deep (unconscious, infrastructure) structure. It is also worth noting that structuralist claim that to understand the surface structure one has to understand the deep structure, and how the it influences the surface structure. It is accurate to say that of all the structuralist the best known and most influential is Claude Lévi-Strauss.

Structuralism, however, is not a unified school or methodology; Lévi-Strauss does not have a monopoly on structural studies in anthropology or other disciplines. Furthermore, the work done by structuralists is extensive, diverse, and difficult. However because of his influence Lévi-Strauss is an excellent example of structuralist approaches. In anthropology the use of the concept of "structure" is far older than Lévi-Srauss; R. Radcliffe-Brown, George Peter Murdock, and many others have used the term in a different ways. However, it is important to note that the main influence on the work Lévi-Strauss' work is multifaceted and that he was influenced not only by other anthropologists but also by linguists, geologists and others. Lévi-Strauss brings into anthropology these and other influences which have shaped his thinking and anthropological thought through his work. The main aspects of Lévi-Strauss' work can be summarized under three headings (1) alliance theory, (2) human mental processes, and (3) structural analysis of myth.

(1) Alliance Theory: Lévi-Strauss' theoretical contributions to social anthropology are numerous and significant. The best known of these is "alliance theory." Alliance theory stresses the importance of marriage in society as opposed to the importance of descent. Its basic supposition is that the exchange of women between groups of related men results in greater social solidarity, and that the result of this cohesion is better chances of survival for all members of the resultant kin group. Lévi-Strauss' claims that the regulating of marriages through prescription and preference and the proscription of other types of marriage creates a "exchange" of women in simple societies. This interchange, accompanied by exchanges of gifts, ensures the cooperation of the members of these groups.
His analysis of the incest taboo is fascinating. For Lévi-Strauss the link between nature and culture in humankind comes from this universal proscription. In the incest taboo nature transcends itself and creates culture as the controlling element of human behavior. Sex and other drives are regulated by culture; man has become a cultural entity.

(2) Human Mental Processes: There is unity in the way the human mind functions. Lévi-Strauss claims that, although the manifestations may be very different, the human mental processes are the same in all cultures. The unity of the mental processes results from the biology of the human brain and the way it works. As a result of this unity, e.g. the classification of the universe by "primitive man" has the same basis as when it is done by any group, it is done through models. The fact that resultant models of this classification may be different is irrelevant for him. The analysis of myth in Lévi-Strauss is also based on the premise about the unity of the human mind.

(3) Structural Analysis of Myth: Lévi-Strauss' work on myth parallels his interest in mental processes. His attempts to discover unconscious the regularities of the human mind. The use of the structuralist models of myth allows for the reduction of material studied to manageable levels. The dominant manner to accomplish this goal is based on the use of the following concepts: a) surface and deep structure, b) binary oppositions Culture/Nature, and c) mediation.

a) Surface and Deep Structure: To discover the model/structure of a myth one must explore the deep structure of a myth. The surface structure provides us with the narrative, the deep structure with an explication of the myth. This is accomplished by discovering the major binary opposition(s) in the deep structure.

b) Binary oppositions: These occur in nature and naturally in the human mind. They are such things as night and day, left and right or nature and culture. Nature and culture often functions as a binary opposition in tales. However, depending on the tale or myth the binary opposition changes. For example, the binary opposition life and death is a useful one to explicate "Sleeping Beauty." Here, the deep structure of the story suggests that when the thirteenth fairy declares that Sleeping Beauty is to die at her fifteenth birthday that a life versus death binary opposition is posited. A mediation to solution the problem is now necessary.

c) Mediation: A binary opposition can be mediated by finding a solution to the opposition created by the binary. The mediation to the culture/nature binary opposition is that culture transcends nature. In the case of "Sleeping Beauty" the nature of the mediation is quite different but equally embedded in within the subject matter. Here the life versus death binary opposition is mediated by the twelve fairy's action: death is transformed into one hundred years sleep.

In "Sleeping Beauty" or in any myth the deep structure of the narrative is analyzed through the discovery of a binary opposition and the resultant mediation. This process may in itself create new binary oppositions in the story which need to be followed until one arrives to a final mediation for the story.
Structuralism is an intellectual movement which bases it analysis on the reduction of materials into models referred to as structures. It is fundamental to structuralism that it be understood that these structures are not concrete manifestations of reality; but cognitive models of reality. Lévi-Strauss stresses that all cultures and not only scholars understand the universe around them through such models, and that humankind comprehends his world on the basis of these mental structures.

Mark Glazer
December 14, 1994
McAllen, Texas

Bibliography
Foucault, Michel
1970 (1966) The order of Things: an Archeology of the Human Sciences, London, Tavistock.
1972 (1969) The Archaeology of Knowledge, London, Tavistock.
Barthes, Roland
1967 (1964) Elements of Semiology, London: Cape.
1973 (1957) Mythologies, London: Paladin.
1975 (1970) S/Z, London: Cape.
Hawkes, Terence
1977 Structuralism and Semiotics, Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press.
Lacan, Jacques
1968 The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press
Lévi-Strauss, Claude
1967 "The Story of Asdiwal," in Edmund Leach, editor, The Structural Study of Myth and Totemism, London: Tavistock, pp. 1-47.
1967 (1955) Structural Anthropology, Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.
1969 (1945) The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Boston: Beacon Press.
1969 (1964) The Raw and the Cooked, New York and Evanston: Harper Torch Books.
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1966 (1915) Course in General Linguistics, New York: McGraw Hill.

©Mark Glazer, 1996

[Earth]

"Post structuralism" is more interesting to me, particularly the move away from binary oppositions, and their increased reliance on semiotics beyond language. De Saussure's work is influential to all of it.

[Bono]

Urgh.
The state of continental "philosophy" is really sad.

[Earth]

Urgh.
The state of continental "philosophy" is really sad.

What exactly is your problem with it?

[Bono]

Urgh.
The state of continental "philosophy" is really sad.

What exactly is your problem with it?

It's all sophistry.
It's not even in the same planet as analytic philosophy. Its methodology lacks rigor, and at times it seems all there is to it is to make up categories into which to fit phenomena. There is also no emphasis on specific, tractable problems.
It also, for some reason, gives credence to Marxist attitudes, probably a result of the French academic mellieu.

[Earth]

Much of it has to do with cultural critiques, and theory, although analytic philosophy's still dealt with. I have a hard time believing it's all sophistry, some of it, maybe. If there's one thing post-structuralists can be accused of, it's obscurantism, and inflated jargon, but it's not as if it's a legion of snake oil salesmen.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Urgh.
The state of continental "philosophy" is really sad.

What exactly is your problem with it?

It's all sophistry.
It's not even in the same planet as analytic philosophy. Its methodology lacks rigor, and at times it seems all there is to it is to make up categories into which to fit phenomena. There is also no emphasis on specific, tractable problems.
It also, for some reason, gives credence to Marxist attitudes, probably a result of the French academic mellieu.

Wow. We Agree. (Somewhat)

(And I say this as someone, who funnily enough, has an assignment due on Levi-Strauss for Monday. It sometimes descends into a rant.)

[Beet]

The continental philosophy or whatnot may not be very logically rigorous, but it sure it fun to read about.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The continental philosophy or whatnot may not be very logically rigorous, but it sure it fun to read about.

You know stuff like...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Admittely this is from a middle of book, Delueze's The Logic of Sense, but still LOL. (American Contintential philosophers tend to be worse however..)

[Earth]

Delueze is a particularly important modern philosopher, (I hate to use the term "Post-modern") but it can be daunting to wrap your head around some of his ideas for lack of clearly defined terminology. Lacan suffers from this, but it's not just them, Heidegger's writing is tough, also. Delueze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus" is not as wrought.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Delueze is a particularly important modern philosopher, (I hate to use the term "Post-modern") but it can be daunting to wrap your head around some of his ideas for lack of clearly defined terminology. Lacan suffers from this, but it's not just them, Heidegger's writing is tough, also. Delueze and Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus" is not as wrought.

No I could imagine (when I referred to American Philosophers I was mainly thinking of Judith Butler btw), I can laugh at stuff I can't understand (and haven't read).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous
series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor
unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy
wherein the differences between series are distributed . . . . In the
second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification,
always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element
traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the
corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the
emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast."

Ah, yes. An example of "The Theory".

[Tetro Kornbluth]

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous
series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor
unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy
wherein the differences between series are distributed . . . . In the
second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification,
always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element
traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the
corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the
emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast."

Ah, yes. An example of "The Theory".

I often stared at that and wondered what the hell it meant. Then I realized it probably something banal like "Damn, forgot to check the pockets of my trousers before putting them in the wash. I had 100 francs in there."

[Earth]

In the first place, singularities-events correspond to heterogeneous
series which are organized into a system which is neither stable nor
unstable, but rather 'metastable', endowed with a potential energy
wherein the differences between series are distributed . . . . In the
second place, singularities possess a process of auto-unification,
always mobile and displaced to the extent that a paradoxical element
traverses the series and makes them resonate, enveloping the
corresponding singular points in a single aleatory point and all the
emissions, all dice throws, in a single cast."

Ah, yes. An example of "The Theory".

I often stared at that and wondered what the hell it meant. Then I realized it probably something banal like "Damn, forgot to check the pockets of my trousers before putting them in the wash. I had 100 francs in there."

It's out of context considerably, but it could apply to the social. Events that are metastable are in stasis, for however long, even if you consider the heterogeneous or "mixed" circumstances that create them. Say an organization, the structure of it, or even a country with a stable political environment.  The potential energy of a system, if we're looking at the social, could be the varieties of change that could occur in a given time period overall, "the distribution" Deleuze is talking about.

The second part, "singularities  possess[ing] a process of auto-unification", could mean the characteristic of events, or disparate elements that come together, for instance, a revolution, as a whole, the single aleatory (chance) point to create a new condition.

The trouble is the terminology. In order to express himself exactly how he needs to, the terminology is extremely focused, and if it's not defined, it'll make no sense. It doesn't help the situation that many terms are taken from the natural sciences.

[Gustaf]

I don't like that kind of stuff. Ideas should be expressed in logically clear ways, not obscured in lofty rethoric, which seems to be a common problem with particularly French philosophers.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't like that kind of stuff. Ideas should be expressed in logically clear ways, not obscured in lofty rethoric, which seems to be a common problem with particularly French philosophers.

To be fair the example I chose was one noted for its extremity: Levi-Strauss is clear (though difficult) to understand. He's Just Wrong.

[Gustaf]

I don't like that kind of stuff. Ideas should be expressed in logically clear ways, not obscured in lofty rethoric, which seems to be a common problem with particularly French philosophers.

To be fair the example I chose was one noted for its extremity: Levi-Strauss is clear (though difficult) to understand. He's Just Wrong.

I haven't read enough to really comment on specific people. But from the contact I have had with this kind of thinking in a general sense, that is my impression. Even complex ideas aren't really THAT hard to express with clarity and stringency, at least not in writing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I don't like that kind of stuff. Ideas should be expressed in logically clear ways, not obscured in lofty rethoric, which seems to be a common problem with particularly French philosophers.

To be fair the example I chose was one noted for its extremity: Levi-Strauss is clear (though difficult) to understand. He's Just Wrong.

I haven't read enough to really comment on specific people. But from the contact I have had with this kind of thinking in a general sense, that is my impression. Even complex ideas aren't really THAT hard to express with clarity and stringency, at least not in writing.

I don't disagree, especially given that I had to read Derrida's Structure, Sign & Play recently. Once you actually find out what it all means, it is actually rather dissapointing, when you except language that verbose you except it to be genuinely insightful. But not so. Though in general I can only really comment on Levi-Strauss.

[Gustaf]

My flat-mate is reading some, what's his name, Holbecque? right now. And that seems like bull. I've read some Camus and that's better, but still...overall, it sort of seems to me that it is a general issue with French philosophy from Rosseau and onwards.