The Epistemological and Theoretical Assumptions of Structuralism - Essay Example

Structuralism perspective in science and technology Structuralism is a universal approach in a variety academic disciplines that examine the inter-relationships between fundamental elements of some kind, upon which some higher mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, through which then connotation is shaped within a specific person, system, and culture. Structuralism exist in academic psychology for the first time in the 19th century and then resurface again during the second half of the 20th century, when it developed into being the most accepted approaches in the academic fields that are concerned with analysing language, culture, and society. However, it was the work of Ferdinand de Saussure that is generally considered to be a starting point of the 20th century structuralism (Structuralism, 2006). Amongst the well-known structuralists are; Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Lvi-Strauss. However, it is not possible to claim that some important social and/or psychological theoreticians and certain sciences are structuralist in character because what they do is to build models of psychological or social reality (Glazer, 1996). Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, existentialism like that practiced by Jean-Paul Sartre was the prevailing mood. Structuralism only became prominent in France after WWII predominantly in the 1960s. The early attractiveness of structuralism in France led it to spread throughout the world (Structuralism, 2006). By the early 1960s, structuralism, as a movement, was able to stand on its own and offered a unified approach to human life that will hug all disciplines (Structuralism, 2006). Just like any other cultural movement, the influences and developments of structuralism are multifaceted (Structuralism, 2006). Structuralism is contentious and indefinable concept. Generally, structuralism can be understood in two levels: first, as a wide intellectual movement, one of the most noteworthy ways of theorising in the human sciences in the twentieth century; second, as a specific set of approaches to literature (and other arts and aspects of culture) thriving in France during the 1960s however with older roots and continuing repercussions. The basic principle of structuralism is that human activity and its results, even perception and thought itself, are constructed and not natural (Maley, n.d.). The theoretical approach offered by structuralism emphasises that elements of culture must be understood in terms of their relationship to the entire system (Rubel and Rosman, 1996). This notion, that the whole is bigger than the parts, got the attention of the Gestalt school of psychology. Fundamentally, the elements of culture are not descriptive in and of themselves, but they form part of a significant system. Structuralism, as an analytical model, assumes the universality of human thought processes in the aim to understand the deep structure or underlying connotation that exist in cultural phenomena (Lett, 1987; Meyer, n.d.). However, the most complicated characteristic of structuralism is that these structures are not based on concrete or physical phenomena as they are in biological or other sciences but based on cultural realities such kinship organisation or stories. These cultural realities are mental as are the structures which explain them. These structures and their structuralist models exist only in human minds, and not in nature as e.g. a Marxist would claim (Glazer, 1996). Structuralism is a multifacet approach embraced by a variety of academic discipline such as psychology, linguistics, anthropology, and human culture as well. Structuralism in psychology In the 19th century, structuralism existed for the first time in academic psychology. Psychology, as a subject of discussion, also has a long history within the fields of philosophy and physiology. It only became a sovereign field of its own with the work of the German Wilhelm Wundt. . He was the first one in history to be called a 'psychologist'. As founder of psychology, he took it as his right to define the first paradigm in psychology, which is structuralism. He taught the first course in physiological psychology at Heidelberg in 1867. In 1873, Wilhelm Wundt wrote the first book on psychology, Principles of Physiological Psychology, which made psychology distinct branch of science with its own inquiries and methodology (Wilhelm, Wundt, n.d.). Wundt successes encouraged many psychologists to seek for the mental elements of which more complex experiences were composed. If the chemist made progress by analysing water into oxygen and hydrogen, perhaps the psychologist could make progress by considering a perception, e.g., the taste of lemonade, to be a "molecule" of conscious experience which can be analysed into elements of conscious experience: e.g., sweet, sour, cold, warm, bitter, and whatever else could be identified by introspection. However, Wundt's structuralism was abandoned rapidly due to the fact that its objects, conscious experiences, are not easily subjected to controlled experimentation in the same way as behaviour is. Today, brain-scanning technology can identify specialised brain cells that respond specifically to fundamental lines and shapes; the outputs of these cells are united in other brain areas where activity coordinate with more complicated visual experience. This kind of research, referred to as cognitive psychology, is regarded as a new kind of structuralism (Structuralism, 2006). Structuralism in linguistics Structuralism has emerged from linguistics and in literature it finds an object which has itself emerged from language. This is the reason why structuralism should want to found a science of literature or, to be more exact, a linguistics of discourse, whose object is the 'language' of literary forms, grasped on many levels ... In short, structuralism will be just one more 'science' (several are born each century, some of them only ephemeral) if it does not manage to place the actual subversion of scientific language at the centre of its programme (Barthes, n.d.; Maley, n.d.). Ferdinand de Saussure is the originator of the 20th century resurfacing of structuralism, specifically in his 1916 book Course in General Linguistics, where he pay attention not on the use of language (parole, or talk), but rather on the fundamental system of language (langue) and called his theory semiotics. This approach focused on examining how the elements of language related to each other in the present, that is, 'synchronically' rather than 'diachronically' (Structuralism, 2006). Saussure's Course influenced many linguists in the period between WWI and WWII. In America, Leonard Bloomfield developed his own version of structural linguistics, as did Louis Hjelmslev in Denmark. In France Antoine Meillet and mile Benveniste would continue Saussure's program. Most importantly, however, members of the Prague School of linguistics such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy conducted research that would be greatly influential (Structuralism, 2006). The clearest and most important example of Prague School structuralism lies in phonemics. Rather than simply compile a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague School sought to examine how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analyzed in terms of a series of contrasts. Whilst this approach is now standard in linguistics, it was radical at the time. Phonology would then become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different forms (Structuralism, 2006). Structuralism in anthropology It was Claude Lvi-Strauss, French anthropologist, who made structuralism prominent in France. He used Saussurian structural linguistics to the study of such phenomena as myths, rituals, kinship relations, eating conventions ... Literature seemed especially appropriate to a structuralist approach as it was wholly made up of language" (Newton, n.d.; Maley, n.d.). According to structural theory in anthropology, meaning is produced and reproduced within a culture through a variety of practises, phenomena and activities which serve as systems of implication. A structuralist studies activities as varied as food preparation and serving rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary texts, and other forms of entertainment to discover the deep structures by which meaning is shaped and reshaped within a culture (Structuralism, 2006). Structuralism in General Human Culture Levi-Strauss expanded a form of linguistic analysis to all human culture. He believes that there is a known structure behind all actions. All the operations of human consciousness and action are built on simple contrasts-the raw and the cooked, the wet and the dry, and so forth. For Levi-Strauss, these distinctions are enduring and widespread (Structuralism, 2004). With regards to this, he is expanding another aspect of linguistic research, the search for a universal grammar. Cultures cannot be explained without some reference to universals, located in a fundamental structure of the human mind, which must necessarily be expressed in every human act (Structuralism, 2004). One implication of Levi-Strauss view is that the same structures will operate in both the actions being studied and the scholar's interpretation of them. Freud may completely misunderstood a folktale's meaning, in the sense of giving a bad explanation of the psychological tensions that its tellers had in them to articulate. But his response to the tale nevertheless arises from the same basis as theirs. It is at least pertinent to a good explanation of what the tale means. Levi-Strauss examined this sort of vagueness in his later MYTHOLOGIES (Structuralism, 2004). Normative structure of science The normative structure of science was developed and advocated by Robert K. Merton for which he is famous for. He argues that scientists should be oriented in their relationship to each other in four ways: universalism, communism, organised skepticism, and disinterestedness (Merton). Robert K. Merton is not a positivist, he argues that science is socially constructed, and was concerned to create models and paradigms for the sociology of science. Understanding well that the field was disunified, and also that sociologists are called upon by "men of affairs" to give policy advice (political and industrial affairs, one presumes), he felt that important questions of structure - what should be studied With what tools - should be answered with reasonable intelligence. The four structures are: Universalism, Communism, Disinterestedness, and Organized Skepticism (Merton, n.d.). Universalism: this aspect is affirmed in theory, says Merton, but fairly often suppressed in practice. He cites examples from WW I and II. However, deviation from the norm highlights the legitimacy of the norm (Merton, n.d.). Communism: property rights are kept to a bare minimum. A scientist receives glory only, and for this reason, priority is key, and maneuvering for priority is common. It takes a confident scientist, (like Newton) to acknowledge indebtedness, to stand (easily) on the shoulders of giants (Merton, n.d.). Disinterestedness: this aspect of scientific work is not reinforced by any innate goodness on the part of scientists, but by peer accountability. To be reliable, scientific findings must be clear, replicable, open for inspection. Abuse of all sorts happens when this structure breaks down (Merton, n.d.). Organized Skepticism: a methodological and institutional mandate. Empirical and logical scrutiny may create conflict with other institutions, but it is necessary to the effort of science (Merton, n.d.). Normative structure of science is no longer working today as it is no based on how scientists do things. It would be difficult to believe that these structures have been discredited as 'not the way scientists really do things.' They are clearly marked off as 'mores' and not constant practices. It may be that scientists do not act this way, but most, would argue that others should act this way (Merton, n.d.). Conclusion Some concerns have been expressed as to the epistemological and theoretical assumptions of structuralism. The soundness of structural explanations has been questioned on the grounds that structuralist methods are not accurate and reliant upon the observer (Lett, 1987). The model of structuralism is primarily concerned with the structure of the human psyche, and it does not speak to historical aspects or change in culture (Lett, 1987;Rubel and Rosman, 1996). This synchronise approach, which advocates a psychic unity of all human minds has been questined because it does not historically explain individual human action (Meyer, n.d.). Moreover, other scientists have criticised structuralism because it lack concern with human individuality. Cultural relativists are especially critical of this because they believe structural rationality depicts human thought as uniform and invariable (Rubel and Rosman, Meyer, n.d.). Today, structuralism is less accepted other approaches such as post-structuralism and deconstruction. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (and particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of people's attention. In the 1980s, deconstruction and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language - rather than its crystalline logical structure - became popular. By the end of the century, Structuralism was seen as a historically important school of thought, but it was the movements it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, which commanded attention (Structuralism, 2006). Reference List Barthes, Roland. (n.d.). Science versus Literature, in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory, pp. 140-44; 142. Glazer, Mark Glazer. (1996). Structuralism. Available from:http://www.panam.edu/faculty/mglazer/Theory/structuralism.htm> [24 Jan. 2006]. Lett, James (1987) The Human Enterprise. Westview Press, Inc.: Boulder. Maley, Willy. (n.d.). Structuralism and Post-structuralism. Available from: [24 Jan. 2006]. Meyer, Janelle. (n.d.). Structuralism. The University of Alabama. Available from: [24 Jan. 2006]. Merton, Robert K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. (n.d.). Available from: [24 Jan. 2006]. Newton. (n.d.). 'French Structuralism', in Newton (ed.), Twentieth-Century Literary Theory: A Reader, pp. 131-35; 131. Philips, John William. (n.d.). Structuralism and Semiotics. Available from: [24 Jan. 2006]. Rubel, Paula and Abraham Rosman (1996) IN Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, Volume IV. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, Eds. Henry Holt and Company: New York. Structuralism. (2006). Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Available from [24 Dec. 2006]. Structuralism. (2004). Wikiinfo.org. Available from: [24 Jan. 2006}. Wilhelm Wundt and Structuralism. (n.d.). Available from: [24 Jan. 2006]. Read More