Claude Lévi-Strauss - Structuralism

Social Structure

The object of social structure studies, according to Lévi-Strauss, is to understand social relations with the aid of models. The term ‘social structure’ has nothing to do with empirical reality but with models which are built up after it. Social relations consist of the raw materials from which the models making up the social structure are built. Social structure can, by no means, be reduced to the ensemble of the so­cial relations to be described in a given society. The construction of models tells us more than the mere description of the facts involved. The models or models abstract are enough for purposes but, at the same time, explain them, that is, give us additional information as to their internal relationship, the position of subordination and superordination, and so forth.

Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009)

Claude Lévi-Strauss - Structuralism

is often described as the ‘last French intellectual giant’, the ‘founder of structuralism in anthropology’, and the ‘father of modern anthropology’. He conceptualised society not as a network of relationships like most sociologists but as composed of a system of exchange between groups, of which marriage or the exchange of women is the primary component. Structuralism, however, refers to the theory of the structures of the human mind and its application to society is mainly concerned with how the members of a society use a binary system of symbols to make sense of their world. When Levi-Strauss is referring to structure, he is not referring to the overt structures that are visible on the surface, like the dyad of kinship relationships referred to by A.R. Radcliffe Brown, but the deeper and unconscious logical structures that lie under the overt structures. These structures are conceptual and highly abstract and very significantly not accessible to the actors of the society. They can only be accessed by the analyst.

Thus, Structuralism is a purely positivist approach. It looks upon society as a system of logical structures. It draws upon both psychology and linguistics, but in terms of psychology, it refers to the universal mind, not the cross-cultural psychology, but the classical positivist psychology that refers to the unconscious. In terms of linguistics, he is not concerned with the subjective content of what is understood as speech but with the formal properties of langue or the grammatical structure of language. Here Levi-Strauss was directly influenced by the Linguistic Structuralism of Ferdinand de Saussure, who actually coined the term Structuralism in his publications that date from the late 1920s to the early 1930s. According to Saussure, language is constructed out of invisible rules that the speakers know but are unable to articulate. Thus, all native speakers of a language can speak it perfectly and will also know the right way to speak it. They will also be able to point out if someone makes a mistake, but they may still need to learn the basic rules of grammar and they certainly will not know the structures of the language that is known only to a specialist linguist. So, the speaking of the language is internalized at the level of the unconscious without explicit knowledge. Thus, with culture, too, practitioners know the rules and the right ways, but they do not know the reasons that are buried deep below the surface. Thus, the aim of the anthropologist would be to look deep underneath to understand what the basic rules on which the culture operates are.

Levi-Strauss also drew inspiration from his predecessors in French sociology, Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss and also the Russian structural linguist, Roman Jacobson, who was his colleague in the New School in New York, where Strauss taught after World War II. Jacobson belonged to the Prague School of linguistic thought and analysis established in Prague in the 1920s by Vilém Mathesius and Levi-Strauss derived his concept of binary contrasts from his work. The paradigm of binary contrasts postulates that the human mind primarily understands any phenomenon by contrasts. Thus, light is understood only in contrast to dark, life in contrast to death, fast in contrast to slow and so on. There are hardly any concepts that stand alone. In philosophy, his strongest influence is Hegel, from whom he borrowed his dialectical process of Structuralism understanding and explanation that we see so clearly in his analysis of myth and stories. Thus, to understand a cultural element like a myth, it should be broken down into its constituent parts and then these need to be arranged into opposed binaries.

Thus, structuralism also makes a claim to be a generalised theory that has universal application. In this way, structuralism has been used by its followers to analyse disparate bits of culture and also to use it comparatively. The scientific method of comparison and assuming an objective outsider stand is one of the principal paradigms of the structuralism of Levi Strauss.

Lévi-Strauss Contribution to Structural Analysis

Claude Lévi-Strauss was a prominent anthropologist who made significant contributions to the field of structural analysis. Lévi-Strauss subjected anthropological data to structural analysis in much the same way Saussure analyzed linguistic data. In contrast, most anthropologists and sociologists, for that matter, are likely to accept the subjective reports of respondents. To Lévi-Strauss, such reports are simply the basic sources from which to construct the underlying structures. In his analysis of primitive societies, Lévi-Strauss was interested in uncovering the underlying structure of myths and kinship systems, indeed, of the entire society.

Although Lévi-Strauss devoted his attention to primitive societies, he believed that all societies, including modern ones, have a similar underlying structure. He focused on primitive societies because there is less distortion and it is easier to discover the structure. In modern societies, a series of conscious models, or normative systems, have been developed to conceal the structural reality. Lévi-Strauss did not totally denigrate the importance of such models. These normative systems, including their biases and distortions, are important products of people in a society. However, these systems are not of primary importance products of people in a society. However, these systems are not of primary importance because ‘cultural norms are not of themselves structures’ (1963, p. 282).

Most anthropologists study what people say and do, but Lévi-Strauss was more concerned with their human products (Rossi,1974). He was concerned with the objective structure of these products, not their subjective meanings or their origins in subjective processes. In looking at various human products- myths, kinship systems, and others. Lévi-Strauss was interested in their interrelationships. The charting of such interrelationships is the structure or at least a structure. Because a structure is created by the observer, different observers can construct different structures. Two important points need to be understood here. First, structures are the creations of observers. Second, the structures that are created do not exist in the real world. As Lévi-Strauss put it, ‘The term social structure has nothing to do with empirical realities but with models which are built up after it (1963, p. 279)’.

In order to better understand the term “social structure”, we need to understand what it is ‘structure’? This is a scientific methodology question rather than an anthropological one. With this in mind, we can state that a structure is made up of a model that satisfies several requirements. First, the structure exhibits the characteristics of a system. It is made up of several elements, none of which can undergo a change without effecting changes in all the other elements. Second, for any given model, there should be a possibility of ordering a series of transformations resulting in a group of models of the same type. Third, the above properties make it possible to predict how the model will react if one or more of its elements are submitted to certain modifications. Finally, the model should be constituted so as to make imme­diately intelligible all the observed facts. These being the requirements for any model with structural value, several consequences follow. These, however, do not per­tain to the definition of structure but have to do with the chief properties exhibited and problems raised by structural analysis when contemplated in the social and other fields (1963, pp. 279-280).

Lévi-Strauss was not interested in simply charting the structure of a simple primitive society. Rather, his concern was in comparing a wide array of available data on a number of such societies. He hoped such comparative analyses would yield an underlying structure common to all societies. Although he searched for such a structure, Lévi-Strauss did not adopt the dogmatic point of view that structures are the same for all laces and for all times. Contrary to the view of most observers, he saw flexibility in his system.

Major Arguments of Structuralism

Structuralism is a theoretical approach that emerged in the field of anthropology and linguistics in the mid-twentieth century. It posits that social phenomena, such as language, culture, and human behaviour, can be understood through the underlying structures that govern them. The following are some of the major arguments of structuralism:

1. Structures are more important than individual actions or experiences: Structuralists argue that individual actions or experiences are not random or arbitrary but are instead part of a larger system of meaning determined by underlying structures. For example, how we use language is not just a matter of individual preference or habit but is determined by the underlying structure of language itself.

2. Structures can be discovered through analysis: Structuralists believe that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour can be discovered by analysing cultural artifacts, language, and other forms of social expression. By identifying patterns in these expressions, structuralists seek to uncover the underlying structures that give rise to them. For example, a structuralist might analyze the underlying structure of a folk tale in order to understand the universal patterns of human experience it represents.

3. Structures are universal: Structuralists argue that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are universal and apply across different cultures and historical periods. They believe that these structures are innate to the human mind and psyche and are not simply cultural or historical constructions. For example, the structure of language is believed to be universal, with all languages sharing a set of basic features that are determined by the human mind.

4. Structures are objective: Structuralists contend that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are objective and can be studied scientifically. They argue that these structures exist independently of the observer and are not subject to individual interpretation or bias. For example, the structure of language can be analyzed using objective methods such as phonetics and syntax, which reveal the underlying patterns and rules that govern language use.

5. Structures are hierarchical: Structuralists maintain that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are hierarchical, with some structures being more fundamental than others. For example, in language, phonemes (the smallest units of sound) are more fundamental than morphemes (the smallest units of meaning), which are, in turn, more fundamental than syntax (the rules governing sentence structure). This hierarchical structure is believed to reflect the organization of the human mind itself.

6. Structures are interdependent: Structuralists believe that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are interdependent and interconnected. They argue that understanding the relationship between these structures is essential to understanding human behaviour as a whole. For example, the structure of language is related to the structure of thought, with language shaping and being shaped by how we think about the world.

7. Structures can be applied to multiple fields: Structuralism has been applied to a wide range of fields, including anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and literary theory. In each of these fields, structuralism has been used to analyze and understand the underlying structures that govern human behaviour. For example, in literary theory, structuralism has been used to analyze the underlying structures of narrative and plot, revealing the universal patterns of storytelling across different cultures and historical periods.

8. Structures are binary: Structuralists argue that underlying structures are binary in nature, consisting of oppositions or binary pairs. For example, the structure of language is built on binary oppositions such as male/female, subject/object, and singular/plural. These binary oppositions are believed to reflect fundamental divisions in human thought.

9. Structures are unconscious: Structuralists believe that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are unconscious, meaning that they operate below the level of conscious awareness. These structures are believed to shape our thoughts and behaviours without realizing it. For example, the structure of language may shape the way we think about gender or time without us even being aware of it.

10. Structures are historical: Structuralists argue that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are historical, meaning that they have developed over time through human cultural evolution. These structures are believed to reflect the history of human thought and culture and to be shaped by historical factors such as social, economic, and political conditions.

11. Structures are symbolic: Structuralists maintain that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are symbolic, meaning that they are expressed through symbols or signs. These symbols are believed to reflect deeper meanings or ideas that are shared across cultures and historical periods. For example, the structure of myth or ritual may express universal human experiences or beliefs.

12. Structures are dynamic: Structuralists believe that the underlying structures that govern human behaviour are dynamic, meaning that they are constantly evolving and changing over time. These structures are believed to be shaped by new experiences and cultural developments and to adapt to new social, economic, and political conditions.

13. Structures are subjective: While structuralism emphasizes the objectivity of underlying structures, some critics argue that structures are also subjective, meaning that they can be interpreted in different ways by different people or cultures. For example, the structure of language may be interpreted differently by speakers of different languages or cultures.

14. Structures are contested: Structuralism has been criticized for ignoring the role of agency and individual creativity in human behaviour, as well as for failing to account for the role of power and politics in shaping social structures. Some critics argue that the paradigm of structuralism is primarily concerned with the structure of the human psyche, and it does not address historical changes in culture. This synchronic approach, which advocates a “psychic unity” of all human minds, has been criticized because it does not account for individual human action historically.

Structuralism is a theoretical approach that argues that human behaviour is governed by underlying structures that can be analyzed and understood. While some critics have challenged the objectivity and universality of these structures, structuralism remains an influential theoretical approach in fields such as anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and literary theory.

___________________

References

Claude Lévi-Strauss - Structural anthropology

Claude Lévi-Strauss - The Elementary Structures of Kinship

Claude Lévi-Strauss - Totemism

Claude Lévi-Strauss - Myth and Meaning

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post