Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Structuralism
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{Short description|Intellectual current and methodological approach in the social science}} {{Other uses}} {{Use British (Oxford) English|date=August 2016}} {{Use American English|date=December 2023}} {{Sociology}} '''Structuralism''' is an intellectual current and [[methodology|methodological]] approach, primarily in the [[Social science|social sciences]], that interprets elements of [[Culture|human culture]] by way of their relationship to a broader system.<ref>[[Craig Calhoun|Calhoun, Craig]], ed. 2002. "Structuralism." In ''Dictionary of the Social Sciences''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|9780195123715}}.</ref> It works to uncover the [[Social structure|structural patterns]] that underlie all the things that humans [[Human behavior|do]], [[think]], [[perceive]], and [[feeling|feel]]. Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher [[Simon Blackburn]], structuralism is:<ref name="Blackburn">[[Simon Blackburn|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.</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> == 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]]. [[Émile Durkheim|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 [[Semiotics|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 [[French Third Republic|France]] and the [[Russian Empire]], in the [[structural linguistics]] of [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] and the subsequent [[Prague Linguistic Circle|Prague]], [[Moscow linguistic circle|Moscow]], and [[The Copenhagen school (linguistics)|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 history|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. 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 philosophy|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-structuralism|post-structuralists]]. Many proponents of structuralism, such as [[Jacques Lacan|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. 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 science|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 [[Psychoanalysis|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]]. ===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 Linguistic Circle|Prague]] and [[Moscow linguistic circle|Moscow]] schools. In brief, Saussure's [[structural linguistics]] propounded three related concepts.<ref name="Blackburn">[[Simon Blackburn|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.</ref><ref>[[Ferdinand de Saussure|de Saussure, Ferdinand]]. 1916. ''[[Course in General Linguistics|Cours de linguistique generale]]'', published by [[Charles Bally|C. Bally]] and [[Albert Sechehaye|A. Sechehaye]]. Paris: Payot.</ref> # Saussure argued for a distinction between ''[[Langue and parole|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.{{'"}}<ref>[[Ferdinand de Saussure|de Saussure, Ferdinand]]. [1916] 1959. ''[[Course in General Linguistics]]'', translated by W. Baskin. New York: [[Philosophical Library]]. p. 120.</ref> === Lévi-Strauss === Structuralism rejected the concept of [[Human Freedom|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 [[The New School|New School]] in [[New York City|New York]] during [[World War II|WWII]] and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism, as well as the American [[anthropology|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-structuralism|(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 epistemology|constructivist]], 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' === 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>[[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze, Gilles]]. [2002] 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.</ref> In Lacan's [[Psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] theory, for example, the structural order of "[[the Symbolic]]" is distinguished both from "[[the Real]]" and "[[The Imaginary (psychoanalysis)|the Imaginary]];" similarly, in Althusser's [[Structural Marxism|Marxist]] theory, the structural order of the [[capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory)|capitalist mode of production]] is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the [[Ideology|ideological]] forms in which those relations are understood. === Althusser === Although French theorist [[Louis Althusser]] is often associated with structural [[Social theory|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: <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 [[Étienne Balibar]]. ''Reading Capital'' trans. Ben Brewster. London: NLB, 1970. p. 7.</ref> </blockquote> === Assiter === In a later development, [[Feminist theory|feminist theorist]] [[Alison Assiter]] 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|url-access=subscription}}</ref> # 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|Structural linguistics}} {{Linguistics|expanded=Topics}}<!-- This section is linked from [[Charles F. Hockett]] --> In [[Ferdinand de Saussure]]'s ''[[Course in General Linguistics]]'', the analysis focuses not on the use of language (''[[Langue and parole|parole]]'', 'speech'), but rather on the underlying [[system]] of language (''[[Langue and parole|langue]]''). This approach examines how the elements of language relate to each other in the present, [[synchronic analysis|synchronically]] rather than [[Historical linguistics|diachronically]]. Saussure argued that [[Sign (linguistics)|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.<ref>Suryo, Roy, and Talbot Roosevelt. [1989]. ''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 ([[lexemes]], [[morphemes]], or even [[Pattern language|constructions]]) that are possible in a certain position in a given ''[[Syntagma (linguistics)|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 language|French]]: ''{{lang|fr|valeur}}''). === Prague School === In France, [[Antoine Meillet]] and [[Émile Benveniste]] continued Saussure's project, and members of the [[Prague linguistic circle|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 pair|''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 distribution|contrastive features]] also opens up comparative scope—for instance, it makes clear the difficulty [[Japanese language|Japanese]] speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in [[English language|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, [[John Rupert Firth|J. R. Firth]] in the UK and [[Louis Hjelmslev]] in Denmark developed their own versions of structural and [[functional linguistics]]. ==In anthropology== {{Main|Structural anthropology}} {{Anthropology|expanded=theories}}<!-- This section is linked from [[Social anthropology]] --> According to structural theory in [[anthropology]] and [[social anthropology]], [[Meaning (semiotics)|''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, [[Claude Lévi-Strauss|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|''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]].<ref>[[François Dosse|Dosse, François]]. 1997. [https://books.google.com/books?id=UoXZ8aIeZpgC ''History of Structuralism: Volume 1: The Rising Sign, 1945-1966'']. University of Minnesota Press. p. 24.</ref> Another concept used in structural anthropology came from the [[Prague Linguistic Circle|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 opposition]]s 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|gift-exchange]] systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lévi-Strauss argued an [[Alliance theory|''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.<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}} 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. == {{Anchor|In literary theory and criticism}}In literary criticism and theory<!--'Structuralist semiotics', 'Structural semiotics', and 'Structuralist literary criticism' redirect here--> == {{Main|Semiotic literary criticism}} In [[literary theory]], structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular [[genre]], a range of [[Intertextuality|intertextual]] connections (such as patterns of [[metaphor]]<ref> {{cite book |author1 = Suzanne Hecht Juhasz |date = December 1970 |title = Patterns of Metaphor: Their Function in Some Modern Long Poems: Studies in Williams, Pound, Stevens, and Eliot |url = https://books.google.com/books?id=UN5KAQAAMAAJ |publisher = University of California |page = 1 |access-date = 26 February 2025 |quote = A reason why unifying structure in modern long poems has often escaped notice is that readers have not been sensitive to the organizing function of metaphor. }} </ref>), a model of a universal [[narrative structure]], 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: [[Manchester University Press]].</ref><ref> Slavutin, Evgeny, and [[Vladimir Pimonov]]. 2018. ''Plot Structure''. Moscow: [[Nauka (publisher)|Nauka]] / 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>[[Winfried Nöth|Nöth, Winfried]]. 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> 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."<ref>[[Catherine Belsey|Belsey, Catherine]]. 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 ''[[West Side Story (musical)|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'''<!--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 [[Vladimir Propp]], [[Algirdas Julien Greimas]], and [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, [[Mythology|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 literary criticism|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|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 [[World Bank Chief Economist]] [[Justin Yifu Lin]]. The strategy combines ideas from both [[neoclassical economics]] and structural economics. NSE studies two parts: [[Base and superstructure|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 cost|transaction costs]].<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 [[Jürgen Habermas]], [[Philip Pettit]], [[Paul Ricœur]] and [[Cornelius Castoriadis]] --> 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 [[Determinism|deterministic]] structural forces over the [[Agency (philosophy)|ability of people to act]]. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (particularly the [[Protests of 1968|student uprisings of May 1968]]) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of public attention.<ref>Marshall, J. D., ed. 2004. [https://books.google.com/books?id=rwDR3oSoWWAC ''Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy'']. Springer. p. xviii.</ref> 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.<ref>[[Alan Finlayson|Finlayson, Alan]], and Jeremy Valentine. 2002. [https://books.google.com/books?id=dQMQAQAAIAAJ ''Politics and post-structuralism: an introduction'']. Edinburgh University Press. p. 8.</ref> 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 (logic)|validity]] of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a [[Kantianism]] without a [[transcendental subject]]."<ref>[[Paul Ricœur|Ricœur, Paul]]. [1969] 2004. ''The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics'' [''Le conflit des interprétations: Essais d’herméneutique'']. [[Continuum Publishing|Continuum]]. pp. 49, 78ff.</ref> Anthropologist [[Adam Kuper]] (1973) argued that:<ref>[[Adam Kuper|Kuper, Adam]]. 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 [[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. </blockquote>[[Philip Noel Pettit]] (1975) called for an abandoning of "the [[Positivism|positivist]] dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for [[semiology]]," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the [[natural sciences]].<ref>[[Philip Pettit|Pettit, Philip]]. 1975. [https://books.google.com/books?id=lQ5n3czwdZQC ''The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis'']. University of California Press. p. 117.</ref> [[Cornelius Castoriadis]] (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain [[Symbolic system|symbolic mediation]] in the social world;<ref>[[Cornelius Castoriadis|Castoriadis, Cornelius]]. [1975] 1987. ''The Imaginary Institution of Society'' [''L'institution imaginaire de la société'']. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 116–17.</ref> he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "[[Scientific rationalism|logicist]]"<!--[sic]--> 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 [[Two-valued logic|binary logic]] of [[Square of opposition|oppositions]].<ref>C. Castoriadis (1997), ''The Imaginary: Creation in the Social-Historical Domain''. In: ''World in Fragments''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 3–18.</ref> [[Critical theorist]] [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1985) accused structuralists like [[Michel Foucault|Foucault]] of being [[Positivism|positivists]]; Foucault, while not an ordinary positivist per se, paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science, according to Habermas.<ref>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.</ref> (See ''[[Performative contradiction#Usage in philosophy|Performative contradiction]]'' and ''[[Foucault–Habermas debate]]''.) Sociologist [[Anthony Giddens, Baron Giddens|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 system]]s is merely "a mechanical outcome."<ref>[[Anthony Giddens|Giddens, Anthony]]. 1993. ''New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies.'' Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 121.</ref> == See also == * [[Antihumanism#Structuralism|Antihumanism]] * [[Engaged theory]] * [[Genetic structuralism]] *[[Holism]] * [[Isomorphism]] * [[Post-structuralism]] * [[Russian formalism]] * [[Structuralist film theory]] * [[Structuration theory]] * [[Émile Durkheim]] * [[Structural functionalism]] * [[Structuralism (philosophy of science)]] * [[Structuralism (philosophy of mathematics)]] * '''[[Structuralism (psychology)]]''' * '''[[Structural change]]''' * '''[[Structuralist economics]]''' == References == {{Reflist|35em}} ==Further reading== {{Commonscat|Structuralism}} * [[Johannes Angermuller|Angermuller, Johannes]]. 2015. ''Why There Is No Poststructuralism in France: The Making of an Intellectual Generation.'' London: Bloomsbury. * [[Élisabeth Roudinesco|Roudinesco, Élisabeth]]. 2008. ''Philosophy in Turbulent Times: [[Canguilhem]], [[Sartre]], [[Michel Foucault|Foucault]], [[Althusser]], [[Deleuze]], [[Derrida]]''. New York: Columbia University Press. ===Primary sources=== *[[Louis Althusser|Althusser, Louis]]. ''[[Reading Capital]]''. * [[Roland Barthes|Barthes, Roland]]. ''[[S/Z]]''. * [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze, Gilles]]. 1973. "À quoi reconnaît-on le structuralisme?" Pp. 299–335 in ''Histoire de la philosophie, Idées, Doctrines. Vol. 8: Le XXe siècle'', edited by [[François Châtelet|F. Châtelet]]. Paris: [[Hachette (publisher)|Hachette]] * [[Ferdinand de Saussure|de Saussure, Ferdinand]]. 1916. ''[[Course in General Linguistics]]''. * [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]]. ''[[The order of things|The Order of Things]]''. *[[Roman Jakobson|Jakobson, Roman]]. ''Essais de linguistique générale''. * [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan, Jacques]]. ''[[Seminars of Jacques Lacan|The Seminars of Jacques Lacan]]''. *[[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. ''The Elementary Structures of Kinship''. * —— 1958. ''Structural Anthropology'' [''Anthropologie structurale''] * —— 1964–1971. ''[[Mythologiques]]'' * Wilcken, Patrick, ed. ''Claude Levi-Strauss: The Father of Modern Anthropology''. {{Philosophy of language}} {{Continental philosophy}} {{Human geography}} {{Positivism}} {{Authority control}} [[Category:Structuralism| ]] [[Category:Linguistic theories and hypotheses]] [[Category:Literary criticism]] [[Category:Philosophical anthropology]] [[Category:Psychoanalytic theory]] [[Category:Sociological theories]] [[Category:Theories of language]]
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page
(
help
)
:
Template:'"
(
edit
)
Template:Anchor
(
edit
)
Template:Anthropology
(
edit
)
Template:Authority control
(
edit
)
Template:Cite book
(
edit
)
Template:Cite journal
(
edit
)
Template:Cite web
(
edit
)
Template:Commonscat
(
edit
)
Template:Continental philosophy
(
edit
)
Template:Human geography
(
edit
)
Template:ISBN
(
edit
)
Template:Lang
(
edit
)
Template:Linguistics
(
edit
)
Template:Main
(
edit
)
Template:Other uses
(
edit
)
Template:Philosophy of language
(
edit
)
Template:Positivism
(
edit
)
Template:Reflist
(
edit
)
Template:Rp
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists
(
edit
)
Template:Sociology
(
edit
)
Template:Use American English
(
edit
)
Template:Use British (Oxford) English
(
edit
)