1. The nature of meaning or understanding.
A. The role of structure as the system of relationshi
Something can only be understood (i.e., a meanin
example, a word which is a linguistic sign (something
system of signs, which is language, and not by itself
relationship within a society (e.g., between a male off
the context of the whole system of kinship (e.g., matr
Structuralism holds that, according to the human
their meaning or value is relative to other elements. E
perceived by itself. In order to understand a particula
approach is also exactly the same as Malinowski’s: o
A particular element can only be studied as part of a g
or objects but relationships within a system. Our hum
structures of the human mind.
A particular element can only be studied as part of a g
or objects but relationships within a system. Our hum
structures of the human mind.
B. The role of oppositions / pairs of binary oppositi
Structuralism holds that understanding can only
are called oppositions (or binary oppositions since th
depends on binary oppositions. We cannot understan
“opposition.” For example, there is no meaning “hot”
so on. All terms, so to say, “generate” their opposites
of objects for our mind. E.g., there would not be “nati
the human person if we didn’t perceive our difference
One very important area where oppositions / sign
are crucial for understanding. For example, the only s
sounds “g” and “k” indistinguishable in pronouncing
these two words apart: it means that g / k is a signific
if we pronounce the word “rock” with a rolling R (as I
difference or opposition crucial to our understanding
sounds “g” and “k” indistinguishable in pronouncing
these two words apart: it means that g / k is a signific
if we pronounce the word “rock” with a rolling R (as I
difference or opposition crucial to our understanding
person can create enough difference between sounds
These observations prove the existence of a stru
what makes any single item meaningful is not its part
sounds / words, or its position within the structure (s
the Course in General Linguistics.
2. Levi-Strauss and structural anthropology; structura
to culture
Language is not the only area where structural prin
Levi-Strauss also tried to apply structural
principles to cultural phenomena such as mythology.
just as language. In language this structure can be ro
differences or oppositions. Myth also has its system
might be able to decipher the “message” that myth is
hidden
just as language. In language this structure can be ro
differences or oppositions. Myth also has its system
might be able to decipher the “message” that myth is
hidden
messages, much as we can read “between the lines”
However, in order to “read” myths successfully, w
This
is what Levi-Strauss is attempting to do in his “Story
3. Roland Barthes and semiology
Structuralism is the theory that conceives of all cu
structure. The simplest example of a sign system is tr
of signs.
Ferdinand de Saussure, in the Course in General L
respond in a predictable way. According to him, the s
signified (e.g., a mental concept). These two are comb
“cat” signals the object “cat”). The bond between the
Saussure also envisaged semiology (semiotics) as
signified (e.g., a mental concept). These two are comb
“cat” signals the object “cat”). The bond between the
Saussure also envisaged semiology (semiotics) as
of the systems that is studied by semiotics. 3 Semioti
of which are various sign systems.
Thus culture operates by constructing systems of
cultural codes that can be “read” as text, language, o
reality. (Incidentally, this is important for the idea of d
groups of humans are perceived and treated, e.g., if t
Roland Barthes helped found the modern science
all around him: media, fashion, art, photography, arch
specific message. In his Mythologies Barthes describ
According to Barthes, “myth is a type of speech” (
communication” or a “message,” a “mode of significa
meaning or message (cf. cultural signs and icons). Si
convert everything into language. “Speech of this kin
photograph is “a kind of speech,” in the same way as
article. If an object means something it becomes spee
convert everything into language. “Speech of this kin
photograph is “a kind of speech,” in the same way as
article. If an object means something it becomes spee
semiological [or semiotic] system”; mythology is par
The main principles of Barthes’ analysis of myths is t
myth is something hidden and needs to be
myth has a message and intent and needs t
Type of social
phenomenon
Binary (significant)
oppositions
Element in a
system/structure
Deciphering
message
language
system/structure
Deciphering
message
language
dog-doc this-dis
rock-Rock got-g^t
shark شرق
garb غرب
grammar
understanding
language
society
sister-brother
foreign-native
maternal uncle in
matrilineal society
understanding social
structure
myth
matrilineal society
understanding social
structure
myth
same as above
mythical structure?
mythical message?4
How one would approach the study of myth structura
1. By understanding a culture as a text or language p
would not be significant for someone who lives in a d
determining how they are related, and building a stru
2. By comparing traditional stories to these systems o
social-cultural structures, and determining which sto
significant to this culture. Ultimately, by deciphering t
3. Incidentally, this approach also creates a new defin
story that has the structure of significant binary oppo
significant to this culture. Ultimately, by deciphering t
3. Incidentally, this approach also creates a new defin
story that has the structure of significant binary oppo
be important for this culture and conveys a message.
do not fall under Malinowski’s requirements for myth
do not seem to “legalize” any social practices or insti
Supplementary information:
Structuralism
in linguistics, any one of several schools of 20th-
structuralist principle that a language is a self-contain
of which derive their existence and their value from th
texts or discourse. This principle was first stated clea
by the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-19
structuralismwas further developed in somewhat diffe
In the United States the term structuralism, or structu
work of
structuralismwas further developed in somewhat diffe
In the United States the term structuralism, or structu
work of
Franz Boas (1858-1942) and Edward Sapir (1884-1939
refer to the so-called post
Bloomfieldian school of language analysis that follow
Bloomfield, developed after 1930. Phonology (the stu
morphology (the study of word structure) are their pr
on semantics has been done by structural linguists b
too difficult or elusive to describe.
Structuralism
in cultural anthropology, the school of thought develo
Claude Lévi-Strauss, in which cultures, viewed as sys
According to
Lévi-Strauss's theories, universal patterns in cultural
products of the invariant structure of the human mind
found
5 evidence of such structure in his far-ranging analys
products of the invariant structure of the human mind
found
5 evidence of such structure in his far-ranging analys
basic framework of Lévi-Strauss's theories was deriv
founder of structural linguistics, Lévi-Strauss develop
unconscious infrastructure as well as an emphasis on
the
work of Roman Jakobson, of the same school of lingu
analysis, which postulates that an unconscious "met
Strauss's system the human mind is viewed as a repo
that can be combined to form diverse structures. Pair
separated into singular elements for use in forming n
In analyzing kinship terminology and kinship syste
accomplishment that first brought him to preeminenc
kinship, on which all systems are built is a set of four
mother's
brother/sister's son. Lévi-Strauss stressed that the em
structural analysis of
kinship, on which all systems are built is a set of four
mother's
brother/sister's son. Lévi-Strauss stressed that the em
structural analysis of
kinship must be on human consciousness, not on ob
consanguinity. For him, all forms of social life represe
regulating the activities of the mind. His detractors ar
tested nor proved and that his lack of interest in histo
fundamental oversight. Lévi-Strauss, however, believ
underlie all cultures and that an analysis of the relatio
cultural units could
provide insight into innate and universal principles of
Claude Lévi-Strauss
(b. Nov. 28, 1908, Brussels, Belg.), French social anth
structuralism, a name applied to the analysis of cultu
mythical systems) in terms of the structural relations
has influenced not only 20th-century social science b
comparative religion, literature, and film. After studyin
structuralism, a name applied to the analysis of cultu
mythical systems) in terms of the structural relations
has influenced not only 20th-century social science b
comparative religion, literature, and film. After studyin
University of Paris (1927-32), Lévi-Strauss taught in a
associated with Jean-Paul Sartre's intellectual circle.
at the University of São Paulo, Brazil (1934-37), and d
Brazil. He was visiting professor at the New School fo
City (1941-45), where he was influenced by the work o
1950 to 1974 he was director of studies at the École P
University of Paris, and in 1959 he was appointed to t
the Collège de France. In 1949 Lévi-Strauss published
Structures élémentaires de la parenté (rev. ed., 1967;
Kinship). He attained popular recognition with Tristes
Wane), a literary intellectual autobiography. Other pub
structurale (rev. ed., 1961; Structural Anthropology), L
Savage Mind), and Le Totémisme aujourd'hui (1962; T
Mythologiques appeared in four volumes: Le Cru et le
structurale (rev. ed., 1961; Structural Anthropology), L
Savage Mind), and Le Totémisme aujourd'hui (1962; T
Mythologiques appeared in four volumes: Le Cru et le
Cooked), Du miel aux cendres (1966; From Honey to A
table (1968; The Origin of Table Manners), and L'Hom
1973 a second volume of Anthropologie structurale a
vol. (1975; The Way of the Masks), analyzed the art, re
American Northwest Coast Indians. In 1983 he publis
Regard éloigné (The View from Afar). Lévi-Strauss's s
reduce the enormous amount of information about cu
were the essentials, the formal relationships among t
systems of communication, and he constructed mode
information theory, and cybernetics to interpret them
Structuralism
onships
meaning can be constructed) within a certain system of re
ething that stands for something else) can only be under
itself (cf. the word / sound combination شرقand “shark”
ale offspring and his maternal uncle) can only be underst
matrilineal or patrilineal).
uman way of understanding things, particular elements h
nts. Everything makes sense only in relation to somethin
ticular element we need to study the whole system of rel
ki’s: one cannot understand particular elements of cultur
of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be
r human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships,
of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be
r human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships,
positions
only happen if clearly defined or “significant” (= essenti
nce they come in pairs). This means that meaning is not
erstand something unless we first perceive how it is diffe
“hot” unless there is also “cold,” no “good” without “ev
osites. In fact, it is selecting these significant differences
“native” without us perceiving our difference from “fore
rence from other human beings!
/ significant differences are crucial is language where op
only sound that makes the words “dog” and “dock” diffe
ncing them, we could not tell
gnificant difference or opposition that is crucial to under
R (as Italians or Russians) we can still understand it: ther
nding. (Thus what determines if we can understand som
ncing them, we could not tell
gnificant difference or opposition that is crucial to under
R (as Italians or Russians) we can still understand it: ther
nding. (Thus what determines if we can understand som
ounds that constitute binary oppositions that are signific
a structural principle in language: in language
s particular individual quality but the difference between
ure (system of relationships). These observations were m
uctural method applied
al principles can be applied. Anthropologists apply them
ology. According to Levi-Strauss, myth can be organized
be roughly called “grammar” which is based on its syst
stem of oppositions and “grammar.” If we know this “gra
yth is trying to convey to us. When we master the gramm
be roughly called “grammar” which is based on its syst
stem of oppositions and “grammar.” If we know this “gra
yth is trying to convey to us. When we master the gramm
ines” for political statements and agendas in newspaper
lly, we must know the whole system of relationships in a
Story of Asdiwal.”
all cultural phenomena as sign systems, operating acco
m is traffic lights or road signs. A sign is arbitrary, but ca
eral Linguistics, describes language as a system of sign
the sign is made up of a signifier (e.g., the acoustic form
combined in the mind resulting in understanding or mea
en the signifier and the signified is arbitrary; any wo
cs) as a science of signsin general, not only linguistic si
combined in the mind resulting in understanding or mea
en the signifier and the signified is arbitrary; any wo
cs) as a science of signsin general, not only linguistic si
emiotics was viewed by Saussure as a key to unlocking a
ms of conventional oppositions that fall into conventiona
age, or messages. This is called cultural construction of
a of difference, for some of the oppositions constructed
g., if they fit within an opposition “savage-civilized” etc.
ence of semiology, applying structuralist (or semiotic) m
y, architecture, literature. According to Barthes, anything
escribes some methods of “deciphering” these message
ech” (the original meaning of the Greek mythos: word, sp
gnification.” This means that everything can be myth, pro
ns). Since language is the universal method of communic
is kind [i.e., myth] is a message” so it is not confined to
way as a newspaper
s speech. “Myth as a
is kind [i.e., myth] is a message” so it is not confined to
way as a newspaper
s speech. “Myth as a
s part of the science of semiology discovered by Saussu
hs is that:
to be uncovered
eeds to be deciphered
ucturally:
age phenomenon: identifying significant binary oppositio
in a desert),
a structure.
tems of oppositions, or
h stories might be
ering the messages that may be contained in these tradit
definition for myth: a
oppositions and may
ering the messages that may be contained in these tradit
definition for myth: a
oppositions and may
sage. This might account for some important traditional
myth: that is, they
r institutions.
20th-century linguistics committed to the
ontained relational structure, the elements
rom their distribution and oppositions in
d clearly, for linguistics,
857-1913). Saussurean
at different directions by the Prague school, glossematic
tructural linguistics, has had much the same sense as it
at different directions by the Prague school, glossematic
tructural linguistics, has had much the same sense as it
-1939) and their followers. Nowadays, however, it is com
follows the methods of Leonard
he study of sound systems) and
eir primary fields of interest. Little work
ists because of their belief that the field is
developed by the French anthropologist
as systems, are analyzed in terms of the structural relatio
ltural systems are
n mind. Structure, for Lévi-Strauss, referred exclusively t
analyses of kinship, patterns in mythology, art, religion, r
n mind. Structure, for Lévi-Strauss, referred exclusively t
analyses of kinship, patterns in mythology, art, religion, r
derived from the work of structural linguistics. From N.S
eveloped his focus on
asis on the relationship between terms, rather than on ter
f linguistic thought, Lévi-Strauss adopted the so-called d
"metastructure" emerges through the human mental pro
a repository of a great variety of natural material, from w
s. Pairs of oppositions can be
ming new oppositions.
systems, the
inence in anthropology, Lévi-Strauss suggested that the
f four types of organically linked relationships: brother/s
the emphasis in
f four types of organically linked relationships: brother/s
the emphasis in
on objective ties of descent or
epresent the operation of universal laws
ors argued that his theory could be neither
n historical processes represented a
believed that structural similarities
relationships among
ples of human thought.
l anthropologist and leading exponent of
cultural systems (e.g., kinship and
tions among their elements. Structuralism
nce but also the study of philosophy,
tudying philosophy and law at the
cultural systems (e.g., kinship and
tions among their elements. Structuralism
nce but also the study of philosophy,
tudying philosophy and law at the
ht in a secondary school and was
ircle. He served as professor of sociology
and did field research on the Indians of
ool for Social Research in New York
work of linguist Roman Jakobson. From
cole Pratique des Hautes Études at the
ed to the chair of social anthropology at
lished his first major work, Les
1967; The Elementary Structures of
ristes tropiques (1955; A World on the
er publications include Anthropologie 6
ogy), La Pensée Sauvage (1962; The
962; Totemism). His massive
u et le cuit (1964; The Raw and the
ogy), La Pensée Sauvage (1962; The
962; Totemism). His massive
u et le cuit (1964; The Raw and the
ey to Ashes), L'Origine des manières de
'Homme nu (1971; The Naked Man). In
rale appeared. La Voie des masques, 2
art, religion, and mythology of native
published a collection of essays, Le
ss's structuralism was an effort to
out cultural systems to what he believed
ong their elements. He viewed cultures as
models based on structural linguistics,
them.
m of relationships (or structure). For
understood within a certain conventional
hark” in English and Arabic). A particular
nderstood in
ents have no absolute meaning or value:
mething else. An element cannot be
of relationships or structure (this
culture out of the context of that culture).
an be studied is not particular elements
ships, which make up permanent
an be studied is not particular elements
ships, which make up permanent
ssential) differences are present which
s not something absolute but relative and
s different from something else, or its
ut “evil,” no “male” without “female” and
ences (opposites) that creates the world
“foreign,” and there wouldn’t even be
ere oppositions between sounds / words
” different is the last one. If we make
understanding. On the other hand, even
t: therefore r / R is not a 2 significant
d someone’s accent is whether this
understanding. On the other hand, even
t: therefore r / R is not a 2 significant
d someone’s accent is whether this
ignificant for this language.)
ween this quality and that of other
were made by Ferdinand de Saussure, in
y them to societies and kinship systems.
nized according to a certain structure,
s system of significant
s “grammar” of myth well enough we
grammar of myths we can read their
s system of significant
s “grammar” of myth well enough we
grammar of myths we can read their
papers.
ps in a particular myth, or its structure.
according to the rules of a deep
but cannot be viewed outside of a system
f signs (a word is a sign) to which we
c form of the word, the sound) and a
or meaning (e.g., perceiving the sound
ny word can be used to signify anything.
stic signs (words). Language is only one
or meaning (e.g., perceiving the sound
ny word can be used to signify anything.
stic signs (words). Language is only one
king a variety of cultural phenomena all
ntional sign systems, or system of
on of meaning, or social construction of
ucted by culture can affect how different
” etc.)
tic) methods to the “myths” that he saw
ything in culture can be a sign and send a
essages.
ord, speech, story). Myth is a “system of
th, provided that it conveys some
munication in humans, we can potentially
ed to oral or written speech. So a
ed to oral or written speech. So a
aussure.
positions (for example “ocean/land”
traditional stories for this culture.
traditional stories for this culture.
tional stories that are part of a culture but
matics, and other European movements.
as it has had in Europe in relation to the
matics, and other European movements.
as it has had in Europe in relation to the
s commonly used, in a narrower sense, to
relations among their elements.
vely to mental structure, although he
gion, ritual, and culinary traditions. The
vely to mental structure, although he
gion, ritual, and culinary traditions. The
m N.S. Trubetzkoy, the
on terms as entities in themselves. From
alled distinctive feature method of
tal process of pairing opposites. In Lévi-
om which it selects pairs of elements
at the elementary structure, or unit of
ther/sister, husband/wife, father/son, and
ther/sister, husband/wife, father/son, and
