Structuralism changed from interest in referent and observed to components of a system. It challenged a number of dominant theories (Marxist, existentialism, phenomenology, etc.), however it fell about as quickly as it rose. It grew out of the shift with respect to earlier linguistic, quantum physics, and other developments which began to destabilize other disciplines.
Structuralism began to lead the the destabilization of history. It did this by beginning to focus on the object and attempting to name the structures within. This deconstruction isn't possible on such a historic object.
Saussure started structuralism by beginning with language. Breaking with the tradition that language was a series of actual elements, he posited that all the elements of language were arbitrarily assigned (by the culture using the language) to the items they signified. Thus, much (all) of language is arbitrary and socially constructed. Thus, language is a system of arbitrary signs. Many linguists which followed insisted that Saussure only intended this to be applied to language, however there is evidence that he was thinking much larger. The real becomes known through these signs (both innerlanguage and interlanguage signs). One must for the moment accept that there is a real to perceive and process linguistically.
Levi-Strauss takes this new linguistic model and applies it to Anthropology. By reading culture as a series of signs, he reworked how anthropology had been done. He hoped to create a "scientific" anthropology. His shift also distanced himself from historians of the time, which he considered to just be studying events of the past. He viewed myth as an attempt by a culture to deal with the past and apply its lessons to the present. Thus, he saw myth as removing time from the system of culture. This in turn leads to questioning history in the Western sense.
Levi-Strauss has been labeled as anti-historic and anti-humanist by his detractors. He is not fully either, but he is against certain forms of history and certain forms of humanism, especially positivistic ones. He also very strongly defends the position that histories are "history-for." There will always be elements left out of any historian's narrative. This will inevitably lead to a history which is biased and lacking pure objectivity.
Four major critiques explored:
Ricoeur: He argued that structural linguistics presented a closed system with no outside referent (reality). This clearly violates the lived experience of human language. However, parts of structuralism were useful when applied properly. He thought that Levi-Strauss limited himself to the "savage mind" which made it nearly impossible to apply his tools to other modes of beings (say, modern humans). Ricoeur suggested that Levi-Strauss should have studied texts such as the Hebrew Bible or Greek Myth. Levi-Strauss points out that these myths have been turned into texts and thus removed from their original purpose and setting. (This act of "canonization," both the original formation of the texts as they are and the development of a "holy book" would certainly have altered the perceived meanings of the texts with the ideology of the redactors. Can this ideology be recovered? If so, can this ideology be removed from the texts in order to attempt a recovery of the original intent?) Levi-Strauss also argued that the "savage mind" is not so foreign from our own, despite our "higher" level of understanding.
Derrida: He argues that Saussure's demotion of writing under spoken does not align with Saussure's position that symbols are arbitrary. Derrida argues that the written word signifies two things: the sounds of the spoken word and the thing signified by that word. (This is a very alphabet-centric concept of writing, ignoring pictographic systems of writing where signs have multiple phonetic values.) He argued against Levi-Strauss' continued demotion of written language and his presentation of the written word as being the implied downfall of native cultures.
Anderson: He shows that Levi-Strauss's paralleling of linguistic "objects" to physical objects is not logically sustainable. Language is moreover the product of individuals while culture is the product of culture groups. (Uncertain how applicable this criticism is, as while a specific bowl may only be used by one individual, the concept of a bowl can be used by whoever might fashion one.)
Macherey: He argued that structural literary theory assumes meaning is "in" a text and can be discovered, with this being not very different from traditional literary theory. Macherey would argue that a text must be read in light of what it does not say just as much as what it says. The critic must be able to show a work to be more than what that work is alone by bringing in what the work does not explicitly or implicitly do itself.
Structuralism does provide a number of useful emphases: rigor, the goal of a "meaningful whole" and the admission that language is more than what it states itself to be. Further, structuralism has influenced history by removing much of the positivist baggage from it: cultures are not necessarily "natural," language signs (and other signs) are arbitrary, culture much like language is a system of signs, and so on.
Clark, Elizabeth A. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA: 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment