Structuralism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:25, 1 November 2010 editSlon02 (talk \| contribs)Administrators23,398 editsm Reverted edits by 216.48.130.13 (talk) to last revision by 128.138.64.185 (HG)← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:34, 27 December 2024 edit undoTabula Rupus (talk \| contribs)6 editsm Delete repeated template on Sociology.Tag: Visual edit
(445 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Intellectual current and methodological approach}}
	{{Refimprove\|date=February 2008}}

			{{Sociology}}
			{{Short description\|Theory of culture and methodology}}
			{{Use British (Oxford) English\|date=August 2016}}
			{{Use American English\|date=December 2023}}
	{{Other uses}}		{{Other uses}}
			'''Structuralism''' is an intellectual current and ] approach, primarily in the ], that interprets elements of ] by way of their relationship to a broader system.<ref>], ed. 2002. "Structuralism." In ''Dictionary of the Social Sciences''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN\|9780195123715}}.</ref> It works to uncover the ] that underlie all the things that humans ], ], ], and ].
	'''Structuralism''' is an intellectual movement that developed in France in the 1950s and 1960s, in which human culture is analysed ]ally (i.e., as a ]).

	Structuralism ~~originated~~ in the ] of ] and the ] ~~and ] schools.~~<ref name=d170>]. 2002. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" In ''Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974.'' Trans. David Lapoujade. Ed. Michael Taormina. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents ser. Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. ~~170-192~~. ISBN ~~1584350180.~~ p.170.</ref> It ~~appeared~~ in ~~academia~~ in ~~the~~ ~~second~~ ~~half~~ of ~~the~~ ~~20th~~ ~~century~~ ~~and~~ ~~grew~~ to ~~become~~ ~~one~~ ~~of the~~ ~~most popular approaches~~ in ~~academic~~ ~~fields concerned with the analysis of~~ ], ~~], and ]~~. ~~The~~ ~~structuralist~~ ~~mode~~ of ~~reasoning~~ ~~has~~ ~~been~~ ~~applied~~ in ~~a diverse range~~ of ~~fields,~~ ~~including~~ ], ], ], ], ~~and~~ ]. ~~The~~ ~~most~~ ~~famous~~ ~~thinkers associated with structuralism include the linguist ], the~~ anthropologist ], ~~the~~ ~~psychoanalyst ],~~ the ~~philosopher~~ ~~and~~ ~~historian ]~~, ~~the~~ ~~Marxist philosopher ], and the~~ ~~literary~~ ~~critic~~ ~~].<ref name=d170/> As an intellectual movement,~~ structuralism ~~came to take ] pedestal in 1960s France~~.<ref name = "~~Sturrock~~"/>		Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher ], structuralism is:<ref name="Blackburn">], ed. 2008. "Structuralism." In '']'' (2nd rev. ed.). Oxford: ]. {{ISBN\|978-0-19-954143-0}}. p. 353.</ref><blockquote>"The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure."</blockquote>Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 20th century, mainly in ] and the ], in the ] of ] and the subsequent ],<ref name="d170">Deleuze, Gilles. 2002. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" In ''Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974.'' Trans. David Lapoujade. Ed. Michael Taormina. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents ser. Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. 170–192. {{ISBN\|1-58435-018-0}}: p. 170.</ref> ],<ref name="d170" /> and ] schools of linguistics. As an intellectual movement, structuralism emerged in opposition to ].<ref>{{Cite web\|last=Mambrol\|first=Nasrullah\|date=2016-03-20\|title=Structuralism\|url=https://literariness.wordpress.com/2016/03/20/structuralism/\|access-date=2017-06-29\|website=Literary Theory and Criticism Notes}}</ref> After World War II, an array of scholars in the ] borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields. French anthropologist ] was arguably the first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in structuralism.<ref name="Blackburn" />

			The structuralist mode of ] has since been applied in a range of fields, including ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Along with Lévi-Strauss, the most prominent thinkers associated with structuralism include linguist ] and ] ].
	Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure—modelled on language—that is distinct both from the organisations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination—the "third order."<ref>]. 2002. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" In ''Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974.'' Trans. David Lapoujade. Ed. Michael Taormina. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents ser. Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. 170-192. ISBN 1584350180. p.171-173.</ref> In Lacan's ] theory, for example, the structural order of "]" is distinguished both from "]" and "]"; similarly, in Althusser's ] theory, the structural order of the ] ] is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ] forms in which those relations are understood. According to Alison Assiter, four ideas are common to the various forms of structuralism. First, that a structure determines the position of each element of a whole. Second, that every system has a structure. Third, structural laws deal with co-existence rather than change. Fourth, structures are the "real things" that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.<ref>Assiter, A 1984, 'Althusser and structuralism', The British journal of sociology, vol. 35, no. 2, Blackwell Publishing, pp.272-296.</ref>

	In the ~~1970s~~, structuralism ~~was~~ ~~criticised~~ ~~for~~ ~~its~~ ~~rigidity~~ and ~~ahistoricism~~. ~~Despite~~ ~~this,~~ ~~many~~ of structuralism's proponents, such as ], continue to ~~assert an~~ influence on ] and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's ~~critics (who have been associated with "]")~~ are a continuation of ~~structuralism~~.<ref name="Sturrock">John Sturrock, ''Structuralism and Since''~~, Introduction~~.</ref>		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 ], ], ] ], and ] ].<ref name="d170" /> Though elements of their work necessarily relate to structuralism and are informed by it, these theorists eventually came to be referred to as ]. Many proponents of structuralism, such as ], continue to influence ] and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's post-structuralist critics are a continuation of structuralist thinking.<ref name="Sturrock">]. 1979. "Introduction." In ''Structuralism and Since: From Lévi Strauss to Derrida''.</ref>

	== History ==		== History and background ==
			The term ''structuralism'' is ambiguous, referring to different schools of thought in different contexts. As such, the movement in ] and ] called structuralism relates to ]. ] based his sociological concept on 'structure' and 'function', and from his work emerged the sociological approach of ].
	The work of ] on ], along with that of the ] and ] schools, is generally considered to be the origin of structuralism. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, ], such as that propounded by ], was the dominant intellectual movement. Structuralism surged to prominence in France in its wake, particularly in the 1960s. The initial popularity of structuralism in France led to its spread across the globe.

			Apart from Durkheim's use of the term ''structure'', the ] concept of ] became fundamental for structuralism. Saussure conceived language and society as a system of relations. His linguistic approach was also a refutation of ].
	The term "structuralism" itself appeared in the works of ] ] ], and gave rise, in ], to the "structuralist movement," which spurred the work of such thinkers as ], the ] ], as well as the ] of ]. Most members of this movement did not describe themselves as being a part of any such movement. Structuralism is closely related to ].

			Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 20th century, mainly in ] and the ], in the ] of ] and the subsequent ], ], and ] schools of linguistics. As an intellectual movement, structuralism became the heir to ]. After World War II, an array of scholars in the ] borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields. French anthropologist ] was arguably the first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in structuralism.
	Structuralism rejected the concept of human freedom and choice and focused instead on the way that human behavior is determined by various structures. The most important initial work on this score was ]'s 1949 volume '']''. Lévi-Strauss had known Jakobson during their time together in New York during ] and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism as well as the American ] tradition. In ''Elementary Structures'' he examined ] systems from a structural point of view and demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were in fact different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1950s he published '']'', a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism.

	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~~. ] and ] focused on how structuralism could be applied to ]~~.		Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, ], such as that propounded by ], was the dominant European ]. 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.

			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 ], ], ] ], and ] ]. Though elements of their work necessarily relate to structuralism and are informed by it, these theorists eventually came to be referred to as ]. Many proponents of structuralism, such as ], continue to influence ] and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's post-structuralist critics are a continuation of structuralist thinking.
	Blending Freud and De Saussure, the French (post)structuralist ] applied structuralism to ] and, in a different way, ] applied structuralism to the study of ]. But Jean Piaget, who would better define himself as ], considers structuralism as "a method and not a doctrine" because for him "there exists no structure without a construction, abstract or genetic"<ref>Jean Piaget, ''Le structuralisme'', ed. PUF, 1968</ref>

			Russian functional linguist ] 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 ], by whose work the term ''structuralism'' first appeared in reference to ]. Lévi-Strauss' work in turn gave rise to the structuralist movement in ], 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 ] and ] ], as well as the ] of ]. ] and ] focused on how structuralism could be applied to ].
	]'s book ''The Order of Things'' examined the ] to study how structures of ], or ], shaped the way in which people imagined knowledge and knowing (though Foucault would later explicitly deny affiliation with the structuralist movement).

			Accordingly, the so-called "Gang of Four" of structuralism is considered to be ], ], ], and ].<sup>] – ]'']</sup>
	In much the same way, American historian of science ] addressed the structural formations of science in his seminal work '']'' - its title alone evincing a stringent structuralist approach. Though less concerned with "episteme," Kuhn nonetheless remarked at how coteries of scientists operated under and applied a standard praxis of 'normal science,' deviating from a standard 'paradigm' only in instances of irreconcilable anomalies that question a significant body of their work.

			===Ferdinand de Saussure ===
	Blending Marx and structuralism another French theorist ] introduced his own brand of structural social analysis, giving rise to "]". Other authors in France and abroad have since extended structural analysis to practically every discipline.
			The origins of structuralism are connected with the work of ] on ] along with the linguistics of the ] and ] schools. In brief, Saussure's ] propounded three related concepts.<ref name="Blackburn">], ed. 2008. "Structuralism." In '']'' (2nd rev. ed.). Oxford: ]. {{ISBN\|978-0-19-954143-0}}. p. 353.</ref><ref>]. 1916. '']'', published by ] and ]. Paris: Payot.</ref>

			# Saussure argued for a distinction between '']'' (an idealized abstraction of language) and ''parole'' (language as actually used in daily life). He argued that a "sign" is composed of a "signified" ('']'', 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.{{'"}}<ref>]. 1959. '']'', translated by W. Baskin. New York: ]. p. 120.</ref>

			=== Lévi-Strauss ===
	The definition of 'structuralism' also shifted as a result of its popularity. As its popularity as a movement waxed and waned, some authors considered themselves 'structuralists' only to later eschew the label.
			Structuralism rejected the concept of ] and choice, focusing instead on the way that human experience and behaviour is determined by various structures. The most important initial work on this score was Lévi-Strauss's 1949 volume '']''. Lévi-Strauss had known ] during their time together at the ] in ] during ] and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism, as well as the American ] tradition.

			In ''Elementary Structures'', he examined ] systems from a structural point of view and demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1958, he published '']'', a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism.
	The term has slightly different meanings in French and English. In the US, for instance, Derrida is considered the paradigm of ] while in France he is labeled a structuralist.{{Citation needed\|date=December 2007}} Finally, some authors wrote in several different styles. Barthes, for instance, wrote some books which are clearly structuralist and others which clearly are not.

			=== Lacan and Piaget ===
	] attempted to distinguish itself from the simple use of the structural ]. ] was an attempt to break with structuralistic thought. Some intellectuals, such as ] for example, took structuralism (and ]) for a starting point to later become prominent post-structuralists. Structuralism has had varying degrees of influence in the social sciences: a great deal in the field of ].
			Blending Freud and Saussure, French ] ] applied structuralism to ]. Similarly, ] applied structuralism to the study of ], though in a different way. Piaget, who would better define himself as ], considered structuralism as "a method and not a doctrine," because, for him, "there exists no structure without a construction, abstract or genetic."<ref>Jean Piaget, ''Le structuralisme'', ed. PUF, 1968.</ref>

			=== 'Third order' ===
	==Structuralism in linguistics== <!-- This section is linked from ] -->
			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."<ref>]. 2004. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" Pp. 170–92 in ''Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974'' (''Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents series''), translated by D. Lapoujade, edited by M. Taormina. Los Angeles: ]. {{ISBN\|1-58435-018-0}}. pp. 171–73.</ref> In Lacan's ] theory, for example, the structural order of "]" is distinguished both from "]" and "];" similarly, in Althusser's ] theory, the structural order of the ] is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ] forms in which those relations are understood.
	{{see_also\|Structural linguistics}}

			=== Althusser ===
	In ]'s '']'' (written by Saussure's colleagues after his death and based on student notes), the analysis focuses not on the ''use'' of language (called "'']''," or speech), but rather on the underlying ] of language (called "'']''"). This approach examines how the elements of language relate to each other in the present, ] rather than ]. Saussure argued that ] were composed of two parts, a "signifier" (the "sound pattern" of a word, either in mental projection—as when we silently recite lines from a poem to ourselves—or in actual, physical realization as part of a ]) and a "signified" (the concept or meaning of the word). This was quite different from previous approaches that focused on the relationship between words and the things in the world that they designate.<ref>Roy Suryo and Talbot Roosevelt, ''Landmarks in Linguistic Thought'', 1st ed. , pp.178–179.</ref> Other key notions in structural linguistics include ], syntagm, and value (though these notions were not fully developed in Saussure's thought). A structural "idealism" is a class of linguistic units (], ] or even ]) that are possible in a certain position in a given linguistic environment (such as a given sentence), which is called the "syntagm." The different functional role of each of these members of the paradigm is called "value" (''valeur'' in ]).
			Although French theorist ] is often associated with structural ], which helped give rise to "]," such association was contested by Althusser himself in the Italian foreword to the second edition of '']''. In this foreword Althusser states the following:
			<blockquote>
			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.<ref>Louis Althusser and ]. ''Reading Capital'' trans. Ben Brewster. London: NLB, 1970. p. 7.</ref>
			</blockquote>

			=== Assiter ===
	Saussure's ''Course'' influenced many linguists between ] and ]. In the United States, for instance, ] developed his own version of structural linguistics, as did ] in Denmark and ] in Norway. In France ] and ] would continue Saussure's project. Most importantly, however, members of the ] of linguistics such as ] and ] conducted research that would be greatly influential.
			In a later development, ] ] enumerated four ideas common to the various forms of structuralism:<ref>{{Cite journal\|last=Assiter\|first=Alison\|date=June 1984\|title=Althusser and structuralism\|url=http://www.lse.ac.uk/BJS/pastVolumes/vol35/index284.aspx\|journal=British Journal of Sociology\|volume=35\|issue=2\|pages=272–296\|doi=10.2307/590235\|jstor=590235\|access-date=2013-07-15\|archive-date=2018-10-02\|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002060829/http://www.lse.ac.uk/BJS/pastVolumes/vol35/index284.aspx\|url-status=dead}}</ref>

			# a structure determines the position of each element of a whole;
	The clearest and most important example of Prague school structuralism lies in ]. Rather than simply compiling a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague school sought to examine how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analyzed in terms of a series of contrasts. Thus in English the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct ] because there are cases (]s) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). Analyzing sounds in terms of contrastive features also opens up comparative scope—it makes clear, for instance, that the difficulty ] speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in ] is because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese. While this approach is now standard in linguistics, it was revolutionary at the time. ] would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different fields.
			# 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==

			{{Main\|Structural linguistics}}

			{{Linguistics\|expanded=Topics}}<!-- This section is linked from ] -->
			In ]'s '']'', the analysis focuses not on the use of language ('']'', 'speech'), but rather on the underlying ] of language ('']''). This approach examines how the elements of language relate to each other in the present, ] rather than ]. Saussure argued that ] were composed of two parts:

			# a '']'' ('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 ].
			# 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.<ref>Suryo, Roy, and Talbot Roosevelt. . ''Landmarks in Linguistic Thought'' (1st ed.). pp. 178–79.</ref>

			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 (], ], or even ]) that are possible in a certain position in a given '']'', or linguistic environment (such as a given sentence). The different functional role of each of these members of the ] is called 'value' (]: ''{{lang\|fr\|valeur}}'').

			=== Prague School ===
			In France, ] and ] continued Saussure's project, and members of the ] of linguistics such as ] and ] conducted influential research. The clearest and most important example of Prague school structuralism lies in ]. Rather than simply compiling a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague school examined how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analysed as a series of contrasts.

			Thus, in English, the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct ] because there are cases (]) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). Analyzing sounds in terms of ] also opens up comparative scope—for instance, it makes clear the difficulty ] speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in ] and other languages is because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese. ] would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different fields.

			Based on the Prague school concept, André Martinet in France, ] in the UK and ] in Denmark developed their own versions of structural and functional linguistics.

			==In anthropology==

	==Structuralism in anthropology and sociology==<!-- This section is linked from ] -->
	{{Main\|Structural anthropology}}		{{Main\|Structural anthropology}}
			{{Anthropology\|expanded=theories}}<!-- This section is linked from ] -->
	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, an early and prominent practitioner of ], ] and ] ], analyzed in the 1950s cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship (the ] and the ]), and food preparation. In addition to these studies, he produced more linguistically-focused writings in which he applied Saussure's distinction between ] 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 us unconsciously. Lévi-Strauss was inspired by ] and ]{{Citation needed\|date=April 2008}}.
			According to structural theory in ] and ], ] 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, ] analysed in the 1950s cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship (the ] and the ]), and food preparation. In addition to these studies, he produced more linguistically-focused writings in which he applied Saussure's distinction between ] 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 ].<ref>]. 1997. . University of Minnesota Press. p. 24.</ref>
	Another concept utilised in structual anthropology came from the Prague school of linguistics, where ] and others analyzed sounds based on the presence or absence of certain features (such as voiceless vs. voiced). Lévi-Strauss included this in his conceptualization of the universal structures of the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs of ]s such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women.

			Another concept used in structural anthropology came from the ], where ] and others analysed sounds based on the presence or absence of certain features (e.g., voiceless vs. voiced). Lévi-Strauss included this in his conceptualization of the universal structures of the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs of ]s such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women.
	A third influence came from ], who had written on gift exchange systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lévi-Strauss argued that kinship systems are based on the exchange of women between groups (a position known as 'alliance theory') as opposed to the 'descent' based theory described by ] and ]. While replacing Marcel Mauss at his '']'' chair, Lévi-Strauss' writing became widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise to the term "structuralism" itself.

			A third influence came from ] (1872–1950), who had written on ] systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lévi-Strauss argued an ]—that kinship systems are based on the exchange of women between groups—as opposed to the '''descent'-based'' theory described by ] and ]. While replacing Mauss at his '']'' chair, the writings of Lévi-Strauss became widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise to the term "structuralism" itself.
	In Britain authors such as ] and ] were highly influenced by structuralism. Authors such as ] and ] combined ] with structural anthropology in France. In the United States, authors such as ] and ] 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 ] argued that ] and ] should be at the forefront of anthropology. More generally, criticisms of structuralism by ] led to a concern with how cultural and social structures were changed by human agency and practice, a trend which ] has referred to as ']'.

			In Britain, authors such as ] and ] were highly influenced by structuralism. Authors such as ] and Emmanuel Terray combined ] with structural anthropology in France. In the United States, authors such as ] and ] 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 ] argued that ] and ] should be at the forefront of anthropology. More generally, criticisms of structuralism by ] led to a concern with how cultural and social structures were changed by human agency and practice, a trend which ] has referred to as ']'.
	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 ] group for instance argued that some kind of structural foundation for culture must exist because all humans inherit the same system of brain structures. They proposed a kind of ] which would lay the foundations for a more complete scientific account of cultural similarity and variation by requiring an integration of ] and ]—a program that theorists such as ] also embraced.

			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 ] among high school students in Texas. Foley analyzed how they reach a shared goal through the lens of social solidarity when he observed "Mexicanos" and "Anglo-Americans" come together on the same football team to defeat the school's rivals.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book\|last=E. Foley\|first=Douglas\|title=Learning Capitalist Culture: Deep in the Heart of Tejas\|publisher=University of Pennsylvania\|year=2010\|isbn=978-0-8122-2098-8\|location=Baltimore, MD\|oclc=461631692}}</ref>{{Rp\|36-7}} However, he also continually applies a marxist lens and states that he, "wanted to wow peers with a new cultural marxist theory of schooling."<ref name=":0" />{{Rp\|176}}
	== Structuralism in literary theory and criticism ==
	{{main\|Semiotic literary criticism}}
	In ], structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular ], a range of ] connections, a model of a universal ], or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.<ref>Barry, P 2002, 'Structuralism', Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 39-60.</ref> Structuralism 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. Hence, everything that is written seems to be governed by specific rules, or a "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked.<ref>Selden, Raman / Widdowson, Peter / Brooker, Peter: ''A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory'' Fifth Edition. Harlow: 2005. Page 76</ref> A potential problem of structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive, as scholar Catherine Belsey puts it: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference."<ref>Belsey, Catherine. "Literature, History, Politics." Literature and History 9 (1983): 17-27.</ref> An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes the authors of '']'' did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's '']''. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy '''+''' Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group '''-''' Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their death. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two ''friendly'' families ("Boy's Family '''+''' Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy '''-''' Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.

			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 ] group for instance argued that some kind of structural foundation for culture must exist because all humans inherit the same system of brain structures. They proposed a kind of ] which would lay the foundations for a more complete scientific account of cultural similarity and variation by requiring an integration of ] and ]—a program that theorists such as ] also embraced.
	Structuralistic literary criticism argues that the "novelty value of a literary 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 ], ], and ] in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, ], and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ].

			== {{Anchor\|In literary theory and criticism}}In literary criticism and theory<!--'Structuralist semiotics', 'Structural semiotics', and 'Structuralist literary criticism' redirect here--> ==
	There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and ]'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 ].
			{{Main\|Semiotic literary criticism}}
			In ], structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular ], a range of ] connections, a model of a universal ], or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.<ref>Barry, P. 2002. "Structuralism." Pp. 39–60 in ''Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory''. Manchester: ].</ref><ref> Slavutin, Evgeny, and ]. 2018. ''Plot Structure''. Moscow: ] / Flinta Publishing.</ref>

			The field of '''structuralist semiotics'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> 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.<ref>]. 1995. ''Handbook of Semiotics''. Indiana University Press. p. 312.</ref> 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.<ref>Selden, Raman, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker. 2005. ''A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory'' (5th ed.). Harlow. p. 76.</ref>
	== Reactions to structuralism ==
	Today structuralism is less popular than approaches such as ] and ]. There are many reasons for this. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favoring deterministic structural forces over the ability of people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (and particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of people's attention. The ethnologist ] defined another ethnological method which clearly pitted itself against structuralism.

			A potential problem for a structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive; as scholar ] puts it: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference."<ref>]. 1983. "Literature, History, Politics." Pp. 17–27 in ''Literature and History'' 9.</ref> An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes the authors of '']'' did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's '']''. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy '''+''' Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group '''-''' Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their deaths. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two ''friendly'' families ("Boy's Family '''+''' Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy '''-''' Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.
	In the 1980s, ] and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language—rather than its crystalline logical structure—became popular. By the end of the century structuralism was seen as an historically-important school of thought, but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention.

			'''Structuralist literary criticism'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> 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 ], ], and ] in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, ], and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth.

			There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and ]'s ], 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 ].

			== In economics ==
			{{Main\|Structuralist economics}}
			Yifu Lin criticizes early structural economic systems and theories, discussing the failures of it. He writes:<blockquote>"The structuralism believes that the failure to develop advanced capital-intensive industries spontaneously in a developing country is due to market failures caused by various structural rigidities..." "According to neoliberalism, the main reason for the failure of developing countries to catch up with developed countries was too much state intervention in the market, causing misallocation of resources, rent seeking and so forth."</blockquote>Rather these failures are more so centered around the unlikelihood of such quick development of these advanced industries within developing countries.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Yifu Lin \|first=Justin \|date=January 2019 \|title=New Structural Economics: The Third Generation of Development Economics \|journal=Boston University: Global Development Policy Center \|pages=2–3 \|via=}}</ref>

			=== New Structural Economics (NSE) ===
			New structural economics is an economic development strategy developed by ] ]. The strategy combines ideas from both ] and structural economics.

			NSE studies two parts: ]. A base is a combination of forces and relations of production, consisting of, but not limited to, industry and technology, while the superstructure consists of hard infrastructure and institutions. This results in an explanation of how the base impacts the superstructure which then determines ].<ref>{{Cite web \|date=June 17, 2024 \|title=About NSE \|url=https://www.nse.pku.edu.cn/en/research/introduction/index.htm#:~:text=New%20Structural%20Economics%20is%20a,time%20and%20changable%20over%20time. \|website=Institute of New Structural Economics}}</ref>

			== Interpretations and general criticisms ==<!-- This section is linked from ], ], ] and ] -->
			Structuralism is less popular today than other approaches, such as ] and ]. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favouring ] structural forces over the ]. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (particularly the ]) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of public attention.<ref>Marshall, J. D., ed. 2004. . Springer. p. xviii.</ref>

			In the 1980s, ]—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 ], but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention.<ref>], and Jeremy Valentine. 2002. . Edinburgh University Press. p. 8.</ref>

			Several social theorists and academics have strongly criticized structuralism or even dismissed it. French ] philosopher ] (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for overstepping the limits of ] of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a ] without a ]."<ref>]. 2004. ''The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics'' . ]. pp. 49, 78ff.</ref>

			Anthropologist ] (1973) argued that:<ref>]. 1973. ''Anthropologists and Anthropology: The British School 1922–72''. Penguin. p. 206.</ref><blockquote>'Structuralism' came to have something of the momentum of a millennial movement and some of its adherents felt that they formed a ] of the seeing in a world of the blind. Conversion was not just a matter of accepting a new paradigm. It was, almost, a question of salvation. </blockquote>] (1975) called for an abandoning of "the ] dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for ]," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the ].<ref>]. 1975. . University of California Press. p. 117.</ref> ] (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain ] in the social world;<ref>]. 1987. ''The Imaginary Institution of Society'' . Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 116–17.</ref> he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "]"<!----> theme, arguing that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the ] of ].<ref>C. Castoriadis (1997), ''The Imaginary: Creation in the Social-Historical Domain''. In: ''World in Fragments''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 3–18.</ref>

			] ] (1985) accused structuralists like ] of being ]; Foucault, while not an ordinary positivist per se, paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science, according to Habermas.<ref>Habermas, J. (1990), '']'' (originally published in German in 1985 as ''Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne''), MIT Press, 1990, p. 276.</ref> (See '']'' and '']''.) Sociologist ] (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of ]s is merely "a mechanical outcome."<ref>]. 1993. ''New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies.'' Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 121.</ref>

	== See also ==		== See also ==
			* ]
	* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
			*]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
	* ]		* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ''']'''
			* ''']'''
			* ''']'''

	== ~~Notes~~ ==		== References ==
	{{~~reflist~~}}		{{Reflist\|35em}}

	==Further reading==		==Further reading==
			{{Commonscat\|Structuralism}}
	* ], ''Philosophy in Turbulent Times: ], ], ], ], ], ]'', Columbia University Press, New York, 2008.
			* ]. 2015. ''Why There Is No Poststructuralism in France: The Making of an Intellectual Generation.'' London: Bloomsbury.
			* ]. 2008. ''Philosophy in Turbulent Times: ], ], ], ], ], ]''. New York: Columbia University Press.

			===Primary sources===
	{{philosophy of language}}
			*]. '']''.
	{{continental philosophy}}
			* ]. '']''.
			* ]. 1973. "À quoi reconnaît-on le structuralisme?" Pp. 299–335 in ''Histoire de la philosophie, Idées, Doctrines. Vol. 8: Le XXe siècle'', edited by ]. Paris: ]
			* ]. 1916. '']''.
			* ]. '']''.
			*]. ''Essais de linguistique générale''.
			* ]. '']''.
			*]. ''The Elementary Structures of Kinship''.
			* —— 1958. ''Structural Anthropology''
			* —— 1964–1971. '']''
			* Wilcken, Patrick, ed. ''Claude Levi-Strauss: The Father of Modern Anthropology''.

			{{Philosophy of language}}
	]
	]		{{Continental philosophy}}
			{{Human geography}}
	]
			{{Positivism}}
	]
			{{Authority control}}

			]
			]
	]		]
	]		]
	]
	]
	]		]
			]

			]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

Latest revision as of 17:34, 27 December 2024

Intellectual current and methodological approach

Sociology
Part of a series on

History Outline Index
Key themes Society Globalization Human behavior Human environmental impact Identity Industrial revolutions 3 / 4 / 5 Popularity Social complexity Social environment Social equality Social equity Social power Social stratification Social structure Social cycle theory
Perspectives Conflict theory Critical theory Structural functionalism Positivism Social constructionism Social darwinism Symbolic interactionism
Branches Aging Architecture Art Astrosociology Body Criminology Consciousness Culture Death Demography Deviance Disaster Economic Education Emotion (Jealousy) Environmental Family Feminist Fiscal Food Gender Generations Health Historical Immigration Industrial Internet Jewry Knowledge Language Law Leisure Literature Marxist Mathematic Medical Military Music Peace, war, and social conflict Philosophy Political Public Punishment Race and ethnicity Religion Rural Science (History of science) Social movements Social psychology Sociocybernetics Sociology Space Sport Technology Terrorism Urban Utopian Victimology Visual
Methods Quantitative Qualitative Comparative Computational Ethnographic Conversation analysis Historical Interview Mathematical Network analysis Social experiment Survey
Major theorists 1700s: Comte · Sieyès 1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias 1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists Bibliography Terminology Journals Organizations People Timeline By country
Society portal
v t e

Theory of culture and methodology

For other uses, see Structuralism (disambiguation).

Structuralism is an intellectual current and methodological approach, primarily in the social sciences, that interprets elements of human culture by way of their relationship to a broader system. It works to uncover the structural patterns that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel.

Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is:

"The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure."

Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 20th century, mainly in France and the Russian Empire, in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the subsequent Prague, Moscow, and Copenhagen schools of linguistics. As an intellectual movement, structuralism emerged in opposition to existentialism. After World War II, an array of scholars in the humanities borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields. French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss was arguably the first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in structuralism.

The structuralist mode of reasoning has since been applied in a range of fields, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, economics, and architecture. Along with Lévi-Strauss, the most prominent thinkers associated with structuralism include linguist Roman Jakobson and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.

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 Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, and literary critic Roland Barthes. Though elements of their work necessarily relate to structuralism and are informed by it, these theorists eventually came to be referred to as post-structuralists. Many proponents of structuralism, such as Lacan, continue to influence continental philosophy and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's post-structuralist critics are a continuation of structuralist thinking.

History and background

The term structuralism is ambiguous, referring to different schools of thought in different contexts. As such, the movement in humanities and social sciences called structuralism relates to sociology. Emile Durkheim based his sociological concept on 'structure' and 'function', and from his work emerged the sociological approach of structural functionalism.

Apart from Durkheim's use of the term structure, the semiological concept of Ferdinand de Saussure became fundamental for structuralism. Saussure conceived language and society as a system of relations. His linguistic approach was also a refutation of evolutionary linguistics.

Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 20th century, mainly in France and the Russian Empire, in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the subsequent Prague, Moscow, and Copenhagen schools of linguistics. As an intellectual movement, structuralism became the heir to existentialism. After World War II, an array of scholars in the humanities borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields. French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss was arguably the first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in structuralism.

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.

Accordingly, the so-called "Gang of Four" of structuralism is considered to be Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes, and Michel Foucault.

Ferdinand de Saussure

The origins of structuralism are connected with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure on linguistics along with the linguistics of the Prague and Moscow schools. In brief, Saussure's structural linguistics propounded three related concepts.

Saussure argued for a distinction between langue (an idealized abstraction of language) and parole (language as actually used in daily life). He argued that a "sign" is composed of a "signified" (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.'"

Lévi-Strauss

Structuralism rejected the concept of human freedom and choice, focusing instead on the way that human experience and behaviour is determined by various structures. The most important initial work on this score was Lévi-Strauss's 1949 volume The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Lévi-Strauss had known Roman Jakobson during their time together at the New School in New York during WWII and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism, as well as the American anthropological tradition.

In Elementary Structures, he examined kinship systems from a structural point of view and demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1958, he published Structural Anthropology, a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism.

Lacan and Piaget

Blending Freud and Saussure, French (post)structuralist Jacques Lacan applied structuralism to psychoanalysis. Similarly, Jean Piaget applied structuralism to the study of psychology, though in a different way. Piaget, who would better define himself as constructivist, considered structuralism as "a method and not a doctrine," because, for him, "there exists no structure without a construction, abstract or genetic."

'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." 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.

Assiter

In a later development, feminist theorist Alison Assiter enumerated four ideas common to the various forms of structuralism:

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

Main article: Structural linguistics

Linguistics
Part of a series on
Outline History Index
General linguistics Diachronic Lexicography Morphology Phonology Pragmatics Semantics Syntax Syntax–semantics interface Typology
Applied linguistics Acquisition Anthropological Applied Computational Conversation analysis Corpus linguistics Discourse analysis Determinism Distance Documentation Ethnography of communication Ethnomethodology Forensic History of linguistics Interlinguistics Neurolinguistics Philology Philosophy of language Phonetics Psycholinguistics Sociolinguistics Text Translating and interpreting Writing systems
Theoretical frameworks Formalist Constituency Dependency Distributionalism Generative Glossematics Functional Cognitive Construction grammar Functional discourse grammar Grammaticalization Interactional linguistics Prague circle Systemic functional Usage-based Structuralism
Topics Autonomy of syntax Compositionality Conservative and innovative language Descriptivism Etymology Iconicity Internationalism Internet linguistics LGBTQ linguistics Origin of language Orismology Orthography Philosophy of linguistics Prescriptivism Second-language acquisition Theory of language Terminology
Portal
v t e

In Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, the analysis focuses not on the use of language (parole, 'speech'), but rather on the underlying system of language (langue). This approach examines how the elements of language relate to each other in the present, synchronically rather than diachronically. Saussure argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts:

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.

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 (lexemes, morphemes, or even constructions) that are possible in a certain position in a given syntagm, or linguistic environment (such as a given sentence). The different functional role of each of these members of the paradigm is called 'value' (French: valeur).

Prague School

In France, Antoine Meillet and Émile Benveniste continued Saussure's project, and members of the Prague school of linguistics such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy conducted influential research. The clearest and most important example of Prague school structuralism lies in phonemics. Rather than simply compiling a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague school examined how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analysed as a series of contrasts.

Thus, in English, the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct phonemes because there are cases (minimal pairs) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). Analyzing sounds in terms of contrastive features also opens up comparative scope—for instance, it makes clear the difficulty Japanese speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in English and other languages is because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese. Phonology would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different fields.

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

Main article: Structural anthropology

Anthropology
Part of a series on

Outline History
Types Archaeological Biological Cultural Linguistic Social
Archaeological Aerial Aviation Battlefield Biblical Bioarchaeological Environmental Ethnoarchaeological Experimental Feminist Forensic Maritime Paleoethnobotanical Zooarchaeological
Biological Anthrozoological Biocultural Evolutionary Forensic Molecular Neurological Nutritional Paleoanthropological Primatological
Social Cultural Applied Art Cognitive Cyborg Development Digital Ecological Environmental Economic Political economy Feminist Food Historical Institutional Kinship Legal Media Medical Museums Musical Political Psychological Public Religion Symbolic Transpersonal Urban Visual
Linguistic Anthropological Descriptive Ethnological Ethnopoetical Historical Ideology Semiotic Sociological
Research framework Anthropometry Ethnography cyber Ethnology Cross-cultural comparison Participant observation Holism Reflexivity Thick description Cultural relativism Ethnocentrism Emic and etic
Key concepts Culture Development Ethnicity Evolution sociocultural Gender Kinship and descent Meme Prehistory Race Society Value Colonialism / Postcolonialism
Key theories Actor–network theory Alliance theory Cross-cultural studies Cultural materialism Culture theory Diffusionism Feminism Historical particularism Boasian anthropology Functionalism Interpretive Performance studies Political economy Practice theory Structuralism Post-structuralism Systems theory
Lists Anthropologists by nationality Anthropology by year Bibliography Journals List of indigenous peoples Organizations
v t e

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.

Another concept used in structural anthropology came from the Prague school of linguistics, where Roman Jakobson and others analysed sounds based on the presence or absence of certain features (e.g., voiceless vs. voiced). Lévi-Strauss included this in his conceptualization of the universal structures of the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs of binary oppositions such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women.

A third influence came from Marcel Mauss (1872–1950), who had written on gift-exchange systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lévi-Strauss argued an alliance theory—that kinship systems are based on the exchange of women between groups—as opposed to the 'descent'-based theory described by Edward Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes. While replacing Mauss at his Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes chair, the writings of Lévi-Strauss became widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise to the term "structuralism" itself.

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 fieldwork among high school students in Texas. Foley analyzed how they reach a shared goal through the lens of social solidarity when he observed "Mexicanos" and "Anglo-Americans" come together on the same football team to defeat the school's rivals. However, he also continually applies a marxist lens and states that he, "wanted to wow peers with a new cultural marxist theory of schooling."

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 Biogenetic Structuralism group for instance argued that some kind of structural foundation for culture must exist because all humans inherit the same system of brain structures. They proposed a kind of neuroanthropology which would lay the foundations for a more complete scientific account of cultural similarity and variation by requiring an integration of cultural anthropology and neuroscience—a program that theorists such as Victor Turner also embraced.

In literary criticism and theory

Main article: Semiotic literary criticism

In literary theory, structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular genre, a range of intertextual connections, a model of a universal narrative structure, or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.

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. 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.

A potential problem for a structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive; as scholar Catherine Belsey puts it: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference." An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes the authors of West Side Story did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy + Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group - Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their deaths. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two friendly families ("Boy's Family + Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy - Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.

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 Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Julien Greimas, and Claude Lévi-Strauss in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, myths, and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth.

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

Main article: Structuralist economics

Yifu Lin criticizes early structural economic systems and theories, discussing the failures of it. He writes:

"The structuralism believes that the failure to develop advanced capital-intensive industries spontaneously in a developing country is due to market failures caused by various structural rigidities..." "According to neoliberalism, the main reason for the failure of developing countries to catch up with developed countries was too much state intervention in the market, causing misallocation of resources, rent seeking and so forth."

Rather these failures are more so centered around the unlikelihood of such quick development of these advanced industries within developing countries.

New Structural Economics (NSE)

New structural economics is an economic development strategy developed by World Bank Chief Economist Justin Yifu Lin. The strategy combines ideas from both neoclassical economics and structural economics.

NSE studies two parts: the base and the superstructure. A base is a combination of forces and relations of production, consisting of, but not limited to, industry and technology, while the superstructure consists of hard infrastructure and institutions. This results in an explanation of how the base impacts the superstructure which then determines transaction costs.

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.

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.

Several social theorists and academics have strongly criticized structuralism or even dismissed it. French hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricœur (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for overstepping the limits of validity of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a Kantianism without a transcendental subject."

Anthropologist Adam Kuper (1973) argued that:

'Structuralism' came to have something of the momentum of a millennial movement and some of its adherents felt that they formed a secret society of the seeing in a world of the blind. Conversion was not just a matter of accepting a new paradigm. It was, almost, a question of salvation.

Philip Noel Pettit (1975) called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences. Cornelius Castoriadis (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world; he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "logicist" theme, arguing that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions.

Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1985) accused structuralists like Foucault of being positivists; Foucault, while not an ordinary positivist per se, paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science, according to Habermas. (See Performative contradiction and Foucault–Habermas debate.) Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome."

References

Calhoun, Craig, ed. 2002. "Structuralism." In Dictionary of the Social Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195123715.
^ Blackburn, Simon, ed. 2008. "Structuralism." In Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd rev. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954143-0. p. 353.
^ Deleuze, Gilles. 2002. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" In Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974. Trans. David Lapoujade. Ed. Michael Taormina. Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents ser. Los Angeles and New York: Semiotext(e), 2004. 170–192. 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.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique generale, published by C. Bally and A. Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959. Course in General Linguistics, translated by W. Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. p. 120.
Jean Piaget, Le structuralisme, ed. PUF, 1968.
Deleuze, Gilles. 2004. "How Do We Recognise Structuralism?" Pp. 170–92 in Desert Islands and Other Texts 1953-1974 (Semiotext(e) Foreign Agents series), translated by D. Lapoujade, edited by M. Taormina. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e). ISBN 1-58435-018-0. pp. 171–73.
Louis Althusser and Étienne Balibar. Reading Capital trans. Ben Brewster. London: NLB, 1970. p. 7.
Assiter, Alison (June 1984). "Althusser and structuralism". British Journal of Sociology. 35 (2): 272–296. doi:10.2307/590235. JSTOR 590235. Archived from the original on 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2013-07-15.
Suryo, Roy, and Talbot Roosevelt. . 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.
^ E. Foley, Douglas (2010). Learning Capitalist Culture: Deep in the Heart of Tejas. Baltimore, MD: University of Pennsylvania. ISBN 978-0-8122-2098-8. 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.
Yifu Lin, Justin (January 2019). "New Structural Economics: The Third Generation of Development Economics". Boston University: Global Development Policy Center: 2–3.
"About NSE". Institute of New Structural Economics. June 17, 2024.
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.
Ricœur, Paul. 2004. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics . 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. 1987. The Imaginary Institution of Society . 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.

v t e Philosophy of language
Index of language articles
Philosophers	Confucius Gorgias Cratylus Plato Aristotle Eubulides Diodorus Chrysippus Zhuangzi Xunzi Averroes Ibn Khaldun Hobbes Wilkins Arnauld Lancelot Leibniz Berkeley Herder von Humboldt Mauthner Ricœur de Saussure Frege Boas Tillich Sapir Bloomfield Bergson Vygotsky Wittgenstein Russell Carnap Derrida Whorf Austin Chomsky Gadamer Kripke Ayer Anscombe Hintikka Dummett Davidson Grice Ryle Strawson Quine Putnam Lewis Searle Watzlawick
Theories	Causal theory of reference Contrast theory of meaning Contrastivism Conventionalism Cratylism Deconstruction Descriptivism Direct reference theory Dramatism Dynamic semantics Expressivism Inquisitive semantics Linguistic determinism Mediated reference theory Nominalism Non-cognitivism Phallogocentrism Relevance theory Semantic externalism Semantic holism Situation semantics Structuralism Supposition theory Symbiosism Theological noncognitivism Theory of descriptions (Definite description) Theory of language Unilalianism Verification theory
Concepts	Ambiguity Cant Linguistic relativity Language Truth-bearer Proposition Use–mention distinction Concept Categories Set Class Family resemblance Intension Logical form Metalanguage Mental representation Modality (natural language) Presupposition Principle of compositionality Property Sign Sense and reference Speech act Symbol Sentence Statement more...
Works	Cratylus (n.d.) Port-Royal Grammar (1660) De Arte Combinatoria (1666) An Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) Alciphron (1732) "On Denoting" (1905) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921) Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) Two Dogmas of Empiricism (1951) Philosophical Investigations (1953) Of Grammatology (1967) Naming and Necessity (1980) Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982) Limited Inc (1988)
Related articles	Analytic philosophy Philosophy of information Philosophical logic Linguistics Pragmatics Rhetoric Scholasticism School of Names Semantics Formal semantics Semiotics
Category Task Force Discussion

v t e Continental philosophy
Philosophers	Adorno Agamben Althusser Arendt Aron Bachelard Badiou Barthes Bataille Baudrillard Bauman Benjamin de Beauvoir Bergson Blanchot Bourdieu Buber Butler Camus Cassirer Castoriadis Cioran Cixous Croce de Man Debord Deleuze Derrida Dilthey Eco Eagleton Engels Fanon Fichte Fisher Foucault Gadamer Gentile Guattari Gramsci Habermas Hegel Heidegger Husserl Ingarden Irigaray Jameson Jaspers Kierkegaard Kojève Koyré Kołakowski Kristeva Lacan Latour Lefebvre Lévi-Strauss Levinas Luhmann Lukács Lyotard Marcel Marcuse Marx Merleau-Ponty Nancy Negri Nietzsche Ortega y Gasset Rancière Ricœur Said Sartre Schelling Schmitt Schopenhauer Serres Sloterdijk Spengler Stein Strauss Weber Weil Williams Žižek
Theories	Absurdism Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Frankfurt School German idealism Hegelianism Hermeneutics Marxism Western Freudo- Neo-Kantianism Non-philosophy Non-representational theory Phenomenology Philosophical pessimism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Psychoanalysis Psychoanalytic theory Romanticism Speculative realism Structuralism
Concepts	Alterity Always already Angst Apollonian and Dionysian Authenticity Being in itself Binary oppositions Boredom Class struggle Critique Immanent Ideological Postcritique Dasein Death of God Death drive Différance Difference Existence precedes essence Existential crisis Facticity Gaze Genealogy Habitus Hauntology Historical materialism Ideology Interpellation (philosophy) Intersubjectivity Leap of faith Master–slave dialectic Master–slave morality Oedipus complex Ontic Ontopoetics Other Power Ressentiment Self-deception Totalitarianism Trace Transvaluation of values Violence § Philosophical perspectives Wertkritik Will to power Hermeneutics of suspicion Discourse Linguistic theory Linguistic determinism Semantics Semiotics Media studies Film theory Linguistic turn Postcolonialism Philosophy of language
Category Index

v t e Sub-fields of and approaches to human geography
Sub-fields	Behavioral Cognitive Critical Cultural Animal Children's Economic Agricultural Cyber Development Financial Histo-economic Labor Marketing Retail Theoretical economic Transport Language Linguistics Music Vernacular Moral Psychological Emotional Neo Sexuality Religion Food Health Historical Palaeo Imagined Internet Political Critical geopolitics Electoral Geopolitics Strategic Military Population Settlement Regional Urban Music Transport Social Tourism Tropical
Approaches	Critical Culture theory Feminist Marxist Modernism Structuralism Semiotics Non-representational theory Postmodernism Post-structuralism Deconstruction Scientific method Time Universalism
Category