Levi-Strauss Structuralism and Post-Structuralism - Essay Example

Levi-Strauss’ Structuralism and Post-Structuralism Structuralism was a literary movement that rose in France during the early 1960s and it was propagated especially by Claude Levi-Strauss as a result of the need to understand how language works. This understanding was to be developed in the context of showing how language works as a means of producing meaning on different subjects. Structuralism attempted to show that language was a means through which meaning was conveyed and that it was a significant part of human culture because without it, there would be no meaning to various actions. This movement began as an attempt by Levi-Strauss in his work The Savage Mind to force Jean-Paul Sarte, the leading French philosopher during that period, into an argument concerning his stance on language which the latter did not reply. It made intellects in the country come to believe that Sarte could not reply and they essentially moved to Levi-Strauss’ position that would develop into structuralism. Therefore, through the influence of Levi-Strauss, structuralism developed in such a manner that it became popular beyond his native France and this movement in turn came to produce post-structuralism which was favoured by such intellects as Derrida. In order to answer the question concerning whether language was a means of developing meaning, Levi-Strauss made an attempt to study it in its form (Levi-Strauss 1966, p.112). This was done with stress being put on its being studied scientifically and it ensured that not only was language studied in its form, but also in its original meaning. Through the influence of Levi-Strauss, language came to be thought of as a type of science so that it was considered to be a collection of units that by themselves had no meaning unless they were articulated in a developed system. This way, language came to be considered as units whose articulation relied on the differences that had been developed within larger linguistic and social contexts that ensured that they provided meaning to the users. Furthermore, literary works, as one of the primary concerns of structuralists, came to be considered, not according to the meanings that were developed by present readers, but according to those who read them when the works were developed. It is through the influence of structuralists that language came to have a higher meaning, not just as a means of communication, but also as a basic component of developing meaning. The language system was a means through which different units of language, which were essentially arbitrary in nature and did not have any meaning when they were considered alone came to have meaning. The ability of human beings from different cultures to develop language and the meanings that they contained allowed for the emergence of culture and this in such a manner that human societies were able to preserve them from generation to generation. One of the defining factors concerning structuralism as shown by structuralist scholars such as Levi-Strauss is that it allows language to be a means through which phenomena can be properly understood. In this way, language becomes a system within a society that can only be understood in its own terms rather than understanding based on sources outside its context. Therefore, there cannot be a language behind a language that can be used to understand it and it is essential that it be understood in its own terms because there is no greater language that can be used to develop higher knowledge concerning it (Clifford 1988, p.215). Language can be considered to be a self-referential system that could only be understood if an individual not only learnt it, but also the structures that were used to form it. In this way, language has the ability of explaining itself through the use of words within it, and this can be seen through the study of dictionaries, where meanings of words are explained through using other words within the same language. The structuralist approach came to be considered to be a direct attack on other philosophical though which were based on the belief that there is a core of truth behind what human beings perceive, meaning that what we perceive in not the reality and that it is only the appearance of reality (Fardon 1992, p.217). Thus, it challenged Marxist though which propagated the belief that the world can only be understood through a study of the relations of production, or the fundamentalist Christian beliefs that state that the world should be understood in the context of the fight between God and the devil for dominance. Structuralism therefore works towards ensuring that the traditional philosophical beliefs that the truth concerning the world is hidden are challenged, and that a direct explanation of the world as it is perceived is made. Post-structuralism as a movement, on the other hand, is not as well defined as structuralism and it consists of many other literary theories. Post-structuralism recognises that there can be not literary meaning outside the text and that this meaning is often unstable. In the context of language, meaning is unstable and it can only be derived through a critical study of literary works through a language system. This idea is consistent with Jacques Derrida’s theory of deconstruction where language contains different units that do not have an inherent meaning unless they are combined with others (Derrida 1994, p.125). The units that make up language each has different meanings and cannot function alone unless they are put together into a system where they can form meanings. Therefore, the units of language are not consistent and have to take up different positions in order to bring about meanings while at the same time ensuring that the meanings are understood. The unstable nature of language is essential because it allows for the evolution of language from simple to more complex structures over time. Through this evolution, the meaning of language is not fixed and changes over time as a result of its unstable nature and this creates a situation where it functions differently under diverse contexts (Derrida 1978, p.351). Thus, meaning in language changes constantly and does not stay stagnant and remain stable for long periods because to do so would mean that language would not develop. Therefore, meaning is unfixed and unstable during its function within language and the differences that come about as a result of meanings are what make language to be vibrant while also contributing to its fluid nature. An idea that came from the structuralist movement and may have been influenced by the works of Levi-Strauss was the belief that neither the author nor the reader of a literary work had any way of knowing the meaning of what was written (Douglas 1996, p.20). This can also be considered to have been a direct challenge on the traditional philosophical ideals concerning the hidden reality of different phenomena. Therefore, the presentation of what is available in a literary work can be defined as its reality rather than its having a hidden meaning. It is essential to note that the idea of reading literary works as they are rather than searching for a hidden meaning is also relevant to post-structural studies. One would suggest that reading literary works while giving equal value to meaning and reality is an idea of Levi-Strauss that was carried forward into post-structuralism; the latter which allowed for its continued propagation (Siegel 2001, p.27). It is through the influence of structuralism that literary works came to be considered to be based on reality rather than on the belief that the author had written the work while intentionally keeping its true meaning to himself that was hidden from the reader (Ivy 1995, p.40). Thus, the traditional philosophical view that literary works had hidden meanings other than those that were presented by the author came to be dispelled and this allowed for the development of post-structuralist ideas concerning the same. Therefore, the influence of Levi-Strauss in the idea that language should be studied in its own terms survived into the post-structuralist movement and its influence can be seen in can be seen in such authors as Derrida. When making an analysis of religious narratives, one would have to make a study of Jacques Lacan, a psychoanalyst who started out as a structuralist and ended up being a post-structuralist. Religion can be considered to be based on the unconscious and it is this that makes possible the development of narratives that attempt by human beings to create an understanding of their environment. Lacan claimed that the unconscious is developed like a language and it is designed to ensure that individuals attempt to make sense of their surroundings (Lucan 2006, p.58). Through his being emphatic in his works concerning egopsychology, Lacan claimed that he going back to Freud through resisting the influence of American psychoanalysis. Therefore, he came up with the idea that the “I” is not a part of a centralised core, known as the “ego” but rather was a dispersed and interrelated unknown known as the unconscious. Thus, it would be extremely difficult to understand the meaning of different religious narratives that come about as a result of the human unconscious and this would create a situation where an attempt to understand would be an effort in futility. A primary feature of the works of Lacan and his contemporaries in both the structural and post-structural movements was their attack on the idea of foundationalism (Boddy 1989, p.11). This was an attack on any ideas that claimed that there was a firm foundation or basis upon which a system of beliefs was constructed. In this way, truth can be considered to be a system of beliefs or structures that are invented by society rather than as those based on any firm foundation in reality. Post-structuralism may be defined as an attempt to bring about a combination of the theories of Marx and Freud into a movement based on liberation through free desire. Post-structuralism can be considered to have been a cultural movement rather than as an intellectual movement because it allowed for the development of ideas that were not strictly intellectual. One would suggest that structuralism, as its immediate predecessor, revolved around the development of an intellectual programme that was designed to analyse different phenomena, such as religious narratives, through treating them as integral parts of an established system. Post-structuralism goes beyond this and attempts to analyse religious narratives through questioning the notions behind truth, meaning, good, among many others (Wafer 1991, p.53). The post-structuralist movement propagates the belief that all absolutes are constructions of the human mind and of society and that truth was a creation rather than a fact that existed before anything else. Furthermore, post-structuralism proposes that those ideas concerning reality are nonexistent and that they are basically a product of the human mind as it attempts to bring about some meaning or basis for existence (Taussig 1993, p.19). This idea can be applied to matters concerning religious narratives where post-structuralism defines them as being based on processes that are relative to different societies and are constructed to ensure that there is a semblance of meaning for different natural phenomena. Thus, one would suggest that post-structuralists base some of their ideas on the concept developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that if God is dead, anything is possible. Through this concept, one could come to the conclusion that everything permitted and that all is relative, meaning that ideas such as good and evil are nonexistent. Julia Kristeva, a prominent post-structuralist, argues that the correlation linking the social and the subject are not representative of one another but rather pursue a similar logic (Warin 2010, p.115). It is this similar logic, namely the survival of the group and the subject that allows for the development of similar objectives. Moreover, the speaking subject cannot exist on his own and there comes a time when he stands on a threshold where he is stranded as a result of a demarcation that might be impossible to make out. When this is applied to the concept of religious narratives, one comes to the conclusion that it is the human mind that develops this institution and that the various narratives that the mind develops come to be accepted as truth over a period of time. The unconscious is responsible for the creation of religious narratives and this is done as a way of making sure that the various natural phenomena that surround him are explained to a level that seems satisfactory. Following Nietzsche’s thought, Kristeva espouses the belief that it is the human mind which develops ideas in order to sustain a foundation upon which his life exists and there are times when the constructions go beyond control and it becomes difficult to make a distinction between what is real and what is not, hence the impossible demarcation (Kristeva 1981, p.14). Kristeva propagates the belief that it is through most cultures’ excluding what is maternal or feminine that there comes that they are constructed and this creates a situation where there is lack of understanding concerning the manner through which various cultural aspects came into being (Kristeva 1981, p.82). It is the removal of the maternal that brings about a situation where it is impossible to know the origins of different aspects of life and this leads to a reduction of what is real and what does not exist. In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that it is through the influence of Levi-Strauss that structuralism developed in such a manner that it became popular in intellectual circles. Structuralism in turn came to produce post-structuralism which was favoured by such intellects as Jacques Derrida and recognises that there can be not literary meaning outside the text and that this meaning is often unstable. Furthermore, the discussion has shown that a primary feature of the works of Lacan and his contemporaries in both the structural and post-structural movements was their attack on the idea of foundationalism. Finally, Julia Kristeva has been shown to espouse the belief that it is the human mind which develops ideas in order to sustain a foundation upon which his life exists and that distinction between what is real and what is not is often difficult for the human mind to make. References Boddy, J., 1989. Wombs and Alien Spirits: Women, Men, and the Zar Cult in Northern Sudan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Clifford, J., 1988. The Predicament of Culture. Boston: Harvard University Press. Derrida, J., 1978. Writing and Difference. London. Routledge. Derrida, J., 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. London: Psychology Press. Douglas, M. 1996, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. London: Psychology Press. Fardon, F., 1992. Between God, the Dead and the Wild: Chamba Interpretations of Ritual and Religion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ivy, M., 1995. Discourses of the Vanishing. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kristeva, J., 1981. “Women’s Time,” Signs, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 13 – 35. Levi-Strauss, C., 1966, “The Scope of Anthropology.” Current Anthropology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 112-123. Lucan, J., 2006, Ecrits. New York: W.W. Norton. Siegel, J.T. 2001, “Suharto, witches.” Indonesia, vol. 71, pp. 27-78. Taussig, M. 1993. Mimesis and Alterity: a Particular history of the Senses. London: Routledge. Wafer, J.W., 1991. The Taste of Blood: Spirit Possession in Brazilian Candomblé. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Warin, M., 2010. Abject Relations: Everyday Worlds of Anorexia. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Read More