Estructuralism

Mark Glazer©
It is probably best to approach the term "structuralism" through an attempt to understand the concept of
"structure" within this theoretical point of view. Without an understanding of this fundamental concept, it is
difficult to arrive to an understanding of the intellectual movement referred to as structuralism. Traditionally
the major problem with the term structure has beenits concreteness. The word refers to phenomena, e.g.
buildings, which are most physical in their essence. Needless to say, structures in structuralism are not neither
concrete nor physical. Structures refer to mental models built after concrete realty. Furthermore these models
are not obvious but demand an understanding of hidden, or deep aspects, of the matter at hand. Following this
approachstructuralism is an attempt to build models which can help understand or, as structuralists, would
put it explicate the materials at hand.
The most difficult aspect 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 organization
or tales. These cultural realities aremental as are the structures which explicate them. These structures and
their structuralist models exist only in human minds, and not in nature as e.g. a Marxist would claim.
There are many structuralists including Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques
Lacan and Lévi-Strauss. It is even possible to claim that some important social and/or psychological
theoreticians andcertain sciences are structuralist in character because what they do is to build models of
psychological or social reality. This seems to be particularly true of Sigmund Freud and Carl Marx. In all of
the above a distinction is made between what may be called surface (consciousness, superstructure) structure
and deep (unconscious, infrastructure) structure. It is also worth noting thatstructuralist claim that to
understand the surface structure one has to understand the deep structure, and how the it influences the
surface structure. It is accurate to say that of all the structuralist the best known and most influential is Claude
Lévi-Strauss.
Structuralism, however, is not a unified school or methodology; Lévi-Strauss does not have a monopoly on
structural studies inanthropology or other disciplines. Furthermore, the work done by structuralists is
extensive, diverse, and difficult. However because of his influence Lévi-Strauss is an excellent example of
structuralist approaches. In anthropology the use of the concept of "structure" is far older than Lévi-Srauss;
R. Radcliffe-Brown, George Peter Murdock, and many others have used the term in a different ways.However, it is important to note that the main influence on the work Lévi-Strauss' work is multifaceted and
that he was influenced not only by other anthropologists but also by linguists, geologists and others.
Lévi-Strauss brings into anthropology these and other influences which have shaped his thinking and
anthropological thought through his work. The main aspects of Lévi-Strauss' work can besummarized under
three headings (1) alliance theory, (2) human mental processes, and (3) structural analysis of myth.
(1) Alliance Theory: Lévi-Strauss' theoretical contributions to social anthropology are numerous and
significant. The best known of these is "alliance theory." Alliance theory stresses the importance of marriage
in society as opposed to the importance of descent. Its basicsupposition is that the exchange of women
between groups of related men results in greater social solidarity, and that the result of this cohesion is better
chances of survival for all members of the resultant kin group. Lévi-Strauss' claims that the regulating of
marriages through prescription and preference and the proscription of other types of marriage creates a
"exchange" of women in simple...