Structuralism, Essay Example

Introduction

The term structuralism refers to a method in social sciences that endeavors to analyze a particular field, say mythology, as a multifaceted system of parts that are interrelated i.e. it is a humankind theory in which every element of human culture, literature included, are considered  to be parts of a structure/system of signs (D’Andrade 14). Structuralism can also be defined as a technique of analyzing particular phenomena, like in literature, psychology, linguistics, architecture, psychoanalysis, or anthropology, chiefly distinguished through contrasting the fundamental structures of a phenomenon in a structure of binary opposition (Francois 22). Structuralism refers to a common approach in a number of academic disciplines that endeavors to explore the inter-relationships amongst some essential aspects upon which cultural, social linguistic, higher mental etc “structures” are built, thereby producing meaning within a particular culture, system or person (Francois 44). Structuralism hit the academic world in the 2^nd half of the 20^thC. It has since then grown remarkably to become a popular approach in various academic fields that are concerned with the study of society, culture and language. Ferdinand de Saussure’s works in linguistic is considered to be the foundation of structuralism (Barry 66). There are four general thoughts regarding structuralism which forms an “intellectual trend.” At the outset, structure is the determinant of each and every element’s position of a whole. Structuralists accept as true that all systems have a structure. Thirdly, the interest of structuralists is on the ‘structural’ laws which deal with coexistence as opposed to changes. Fourthly, structures refer to the ‘real things’ which underlie the manifestation of meaning or the surface (Assiter 275).

The best approach to understand the term “structuralism” is by attempting to comprehend the notion of “structure” in this theoretical standpoint. Without a thorough comprehension of this essential concept, it is hard to comprehend this intellectual movement known as structuralism.  The “concreteness” of the term structure has always been the conventional problem towards understanding the term structure. The term structure refers to any phenomena, for instance buildings, which are mostly physical in essence. Unsurprisingly, in structuralism structures are not neither physical nor concrete; rather structures refer to the mental models that are built following concrete reality. In addition, these models aren’t obvious although they demand a comprehension of the deep or hidden aspects, of the issue at hand. Therefore, by utilizing this approach structuralism refers to an effort to build models that will assist explicate or understand that materials within reach.

The most challenging aspect of structuralism is that the structures are not founded on physical or concrete phenomena like in biological and other sciences; instead, they are based on various cultural realities that include tales or kinship organizations. In the same manner as the structures that explicate them, these cultural realities in particular are mental i.e. both the structuralist and their structures models only exist in human minds as opposed to nature (Assiter 279-280).

There are quite a good number of structuralists including Roland Barthes, Levi Strauss, Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault and Ferdinand de Saussure. It is very possible to allege that some significant psychological and/or social theoreticians plus particular sciences are structuralists by character since they are involved in building models of social or psychological reality. This appears to be predominantly true of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The distinction above sheds some light to what may be termed as deep (infrastructure, unconscious) structure and surface (superstructure, consciousness) structure. Additionally, it is worth noting that structuralists advocate for an individual to fully comprehend the deep structure including its influence on the surface structure, so that he/she can clearly comprehend the surface structure.

Structuralism in Sociology and Anthropology

In Anthropology, the structural paradigm postulates that structure of human thought processes is similar in all cultures, and in addition, these mental processes subsist in a variety of binary oppositions. A number of these oppositions comprise of raw-cooked, hot-cold, culture-nature and male-female (Winthrop 88). Structuralists are of the view that the binary oppositions are revealed in a number of cultural institutions. Anthropologists might discover the fundamental thought processes through examination of such things as language, myth and kinship; hence the proposition that hidden realities exist under all cultural expressions.  The aim of structuralists is to understand the fundamental meaning entailed in human thought in the manner expressed in cultural acts. Additionally, the structuralism theoretical approach lays an emphasis on cultural elements that should be understood with reference to their connectivity to the whole system (Winthrop 92). Basically, the cultural elements are not explanatory of and in themselves, although they are components of a meaningful system. In an attempt to explain the underlying meaning or “deep structure” existing within a cultural phenomena, structuralism analytical model assumes that human thought processes are universal i.e. structuralism refers to the set of standards for the study of mental superstructure (Barry 34)

Within a culture, meaning is produced and/or reproduced through a number of activities, phenomena and practices that serve as signification systems. Activities studied by structuralists are diverse and include mythology, religious rites, kinship, non-literary and literary texts, preparation of food and serving rituals, and other kinds of entertainment so as to discover the underlying structures through which meaning is created and recreated within a culture.

Structuralism in Linguistics

In linguistics, structuralism postulates that human culture can be well comprehended as a system of signs. The works of Ferdinand de Saussure focused on the fundamental system of language i.e. Langue as opposed to the application of language (talk, or parole). He termed his theory as semiotics and focused in the manner in which language elements related amongst themselves in the present i.e. ‘synchronically’ as opposed to ‘diachronically.’ He concluded that linguistic signs entailed two parts i.e. a signifier (word’s sound pattern) and a signified (meaning or concept of the word). This differed from the previous approaches that focused on the association amongst words and the items in the world they chosen. Through a focus on the inner constitution of signs as opposed to their connection to things in the world, Ferdinand made the structure and anatomy of language something which could be studied and analyzed (Barry 55).

The key ideas in structural linguistics include the ideas of value, paradigm and syntagm. A structural paradigm refers to a class of various linguistic signs (morphemes, lexemes or constructions) that are likely within a specific position within a specified linguistic setting (e.g. a given sentence), that in this case represents the syntagm. The diverse functional task of every member of paradigm is referred to as value. Proponents of structuralism relate literary text to the larger overarching structure that might be a certain genre, a model of a widespread narrative structure, a variety of inter-textual associations or an idea of the narrative as a system of recurring motifs or patterns (Barry 57).

After World War I and World War II, Ferdinand’s work influenced a number of linguists including Leonard Bloomfield, Louis Hjelmslev, Antoine Meillet, Emile Benveniste etc. Nikolai Trubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson who were members of Prague School developed structuralism in phonemics. Instead of simply compiling a list in which sounds happen in a language, Prague school sought after examining how they were correlated.  They concluded that inventory of sounds within a language can be analyzed with reference to a chain of contrasts.

Structuralism in Psychology

Following the establishment of psychology as a science discipline distinct from philosophy and biology, the discussion over the best way to explain and describe the human behavior and mind began. Structuralism came out as one of leading schools of thought, whereby some of the notions associated with structuralist school were supported by Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of the earliest psychology lab. The main focus was to break down the mental procedures into the most fundamental components (D’Andrade 126-127).

Wilhelm Wundt attempted through experimentation to substantiate his hypothesis that alert mental life is capable of being broken down into essential elements which afterwards form extra complex mental structures. At this time of the 19^thc, a number of researchers were making significant advances in physics and chemistry through the analysis of complex molecules (compounds) in terms of their atoms (elements). These accomplishments encouraged psychologists to seek for the elements of mind that composed the extra complex experiences. In case a chemist made advancement through analysis of water in terms of hydrogen and water, possibly the psychologist may make advancement by taking into consideration the taste of lemonade (i.e. perception) to be a compound of cognizant experience to be analyzed with reference to elements (sensations) which include: bitter, warm, cold, sour, sweet, and anything that could be recognized through introspection (observation). Wundt trained Edward B. Titchener, a psychologist at Cornell University who later became a major supporter of structuralism psychology.  Since the aim was to identify mental structures, Edward coined “structuralism as a phrase to illustrate this subdivision of psychology (Atkinson 767).

Structuralism as put forward by Wilhelm Wundt was abandoned rapidly owing to the fact that it could not be put test in a similar manner as behavior. At the moment, however, brain-scanning technology can recognize, for instance, specialized brain cells which respond wholly to basic shapes and lines and are later combined in subsequent areas of the brain where formation of extra complex visual structures takes place. In modern psychology, this line of study is referred to as cognitive psychology as opposed to structuralism since Wundt’s term continued to be linked with the observability problem.

Structuralism in Literary Theory and Criticism

Literary theory and criticism refers to the interpretive tools that assist us think more insightfully and deeply concerning the literature that we study. Over time, diverse schools of thought focusing on literary criticism (schools of interpretation) have emerged, each with its unique approaches to the activity of reading. (1) Cambridge School (1020s to 1930s), a collection of scholars favored individual close reading of texts and rejected biographical and historical analysis of texts at Cambridge University. (2) Chicago School (1950s), a collection of scholars at University of Chicago drew on Aristotle’s distinctions amongst a number of elements in a narrative to examine the connectivity between structure and form.

Structuralism in literary theory refers to a technique of analyzing the narrative material through the examination of the fundamental invariant structure (Atkinson 102). In general terms, a structuralist reads so that he/she can understand and identify the underlying structures in absolutely everything through seeing a text (action, object, document, event, etc.) as part of a larger system. Obviously, a literary structuralist pays close attention on structures within “literally” texts (a structuralist would assist define “literary” through the study of the underlying structure within text we tag “literary”). This more pseudo-scientific since a structuralist hypothetically merely maps what is there, he/she doesn’t evaluate; instead he/she simply links, charts or compares a single structure with another. A perfect exemplar of a structuralist is a grammarian because he/she pays no regard to the content of a particular sentence that he/she maps. He/she only minds about the manner in which words function in a sentence. In a similar manner, a structuralist handles the text; he/she wishes to map the “grammar” of a text that he/she studies. The reason behind this action is that, structuralists still boast of sufficient humanist remains on them to research for the benefit of knowledge. It’s a pleasure to have a feeling that one somehow understands the “underlying” structure of everything and to make relations between texts.

Structuralists portray the willingness to read almost everything, for anything is a component of a sign system, from Madonna to ancient cultures, from celebrity’s face to cars, from velvet paintings to literary texts. Indeed, this capability to shift between systems renders structuralism to be very useful. The theory reveals that “Literature” is not an essential or inherent category (is a human construct); in addition, everything is a “text” given that everything is a component of “language” or sign system. Perhaps problematically, one may opt to focus on “literary” systems or relate “literary” systems to the other systems, that is, how does literary learning operate in the larger structure of certain ideologies? of our economy? of the university? etc.

Structuralism in Mathematic Philosophy

In mathematics, structuralism refers to study as to what structures e.g. mathematical objects is, and the manner in which ontology of the same structures need to be understood. This growing mathematic philosophy has not been without criticism. E.g. treating mathematical statements at their face value, whereby we are dedicated to a world of eternal realm, an abstract of mathematical objects. The question regards how we come to recognize these objects if we don’t stand in the causal relationship with them. These mathematical objects are considered casually static to the world. Another criticism involves the existence multiple set of theories through which elementary number reduction theory to sets is doable. Deciding which of the set theories is true hasn’t been feasible (Sturrock 65).

The answer to the above criticism depends on how structuralism turned out to be a feasible philosophical program in mathematics. The structuralist claim that essence of the mathematical objects is the relationship borne by the object with the structure. The structures are typified in abstract systems with relationship that hold factual for that system. Bourbaki is recognized for his significant contribution to structuralism within mathematics.

Reactions to Structuralism

At the current, structuralism has been overtaken by other approaches such as deconstruction and post-structuralism. This can be attributed to the criticism against structuralism for supporting deterministic structural forces regarding the capability of individual person to act and being ahistorical. The 1960s and 1970s political turbulence (especially student uprising of 1968) affected the political struggle, issues of power and the academy to win the attention of the masses. Deconstruction in the 1980s plus its emphasis on the underlying ambiguity of language as opposed to its crystalline rational structure turned out to be popular. At the turn of the century, structuralism was viewed to be historically significant, although this featured figuratively to the movement it spawned, which commanded attention as opposed to the structuralism itself (Sturrock 99).

Conclusion

Structuralism refers to a common approach in a number of academic disciplines that endeavors to explore the inter-relationships amongst some essential aspects upon which cultural, social linguistic, higher mental etc “structures” are built, thereby producing meaning within a particular culture, system or person. It has a wide application in various academic disciplines although its influence to date has been overtaken by other approaches such as deconstruction and post-structuralism.

Works Cited

Assiter, A. “Althusser and structuralism,” The British journal of sociology, 35.2 (1984): 272-296.

Atkinson, R.L. Introduction to Psychology. 10^th Ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990.

Barry, P. ‘Structuralism’, Beginning theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002.

D’Andrade, R. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Francois, Dosse. History of Structuralism. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Sturrock, John. Structuralism. 2^nd Ed. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2003.

Winthrop, Robert H. Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991.