Download by Claude Levi

Structuralism
Jakobson & Trobetzkoy
(Prauge School - phonemic
study of lg)
Durkheim & Mauss
* idea of binaries
Structuralism


Formed almost single-handedly by Claude Levi-Strauss
Main Idea: study culture (outward classifications, practices, beliefs, organizations) to to try and
understand unconscious principles that structure human culture, which reveal the underlying
patterns of human thought
o Culture is system and collection of arbitrary symbols. Similar to phonemes of a language, the
individual parts and elements are meaningless, but when patterned and organized have
meaning. The way cultural elements relate to each other forms the overall system
Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009)





Culture = product of mind & product of its own history and technological adaptation to the world
o Since human brains biologically similar, reasoned that must be deep-seated similarities
among cultures
Goal for anthropology: discover fundamental structure of human cognition, the underlying
patterns of human thought that produce the great variety of current and historical cultures
a culture's history and technological adaptation causes "cultural interference" or "noise" that alter the
unconscious universal patterning of thought
o Tried to look beyond that. Also interested in mythologies of primitive peoples b/c allowed
him to examine the unconscious universal patterning of human thought in its least
contaminated form.
o Western cultures buried the logical structure he sought under layers of “cultural interference”
o Parts, such as elements of myth, acquire meaning only as a consequence of certain structural
relations.
 To uncover unconscious meaning of myth, the structuralist must break myth into its
elements and examine the rules that govern their relationships.
 The hidden structural core will reveal the essential patterns and process of human
thought
Famous studies: cross-cultural studies of kinship, myths, folktales and religion
Influences:
o Emile Durkheim and Marcell Mauss
 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (Durkheim 1965, orig. 1912) & The Gift
(Mauss 1967, orig 1925)  The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Levi-Strauss 1949).

o Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trobetzkoy – led the Prague School of structural linguistics
(organized 1926)
 Descriptive (synchronic) rather than historical (diachronic) study of language
 Phonemic study of language, contrasts between sounds/phonemes
 This study and Durkheim gave Levi-Strauss concept of binary contrasts
Binary oppositions as natural and basis of human cognition
o Self vs. others, sacred vs. profane, etc
o Used to describe kinship networks and exchange of women (as commodity) between kinship
groups (similar to incest taboo).
o Proposes that a fundamental characteristic of human thought was the desire to find a
midpoint between such binary oppositions, a category that transcends and somehow
resolves them (almost like synthesis of dialectics and aufhebum)
“Linguistics and Anthropology”
by Claude Levi-Strauss (Reader 326-37)
Levels of linguistics and anthropology
1. relationship between a language and a culture [receives most attention]
o how far is it necessary to know the language when trying to study a culture
o how far is it necessary to have some knowledge of the culture besides the language when
trying to understand what is meant by the population (in language)
2. relationship between language as a whole and the behavior of culture as a whole [gets less
attention]
o ie.) language is to be used in ways specified by the certain frames of reference. (decided by
culture?). you can't just say random words and mean something
3. relationship between linguistics as a scientific discipline and anthropology [even less attention]
Explanations
Language and Culture

complicated relationship
1. can say language is result of culture: language of population as reflection of total culture of population
2. can also say language is part of culture: one of many parts that makes up culture
3. can say language is a condition of culture (2 views)
a. it is a condition of culture in a diachronic way (it's mostly through language that we learn about our
own culture)
b. it is a condition of culture because the material out of which language is built is of the same type as
the material out of which the whole culture is built: logical relations, oppositions, correlations, etc.
- From the subjective perspective, linguists and anthropologists eager to get together, but for different
reasons
Linguists see and are afraid that they are becoming more and more disconnected with the
other fields.
 focusing on abstract things, hard for others to follow
 main concerns (especially structural linguistics) has no relation to whole culture,
social life, history of people, etc.
 hope that by getting together with anthropologists, they can give them back some of
concreteness they have lost
o Anthropologists see that linguists becoming more like exact and natural sciences and are
envious and melancholy(believed privileges associated with exact and natural sciences)
 hope that by getting together with linguists, can learn how achieved that and how
anthropologists may achieve it in their own field.
 for many anthropologists, the world of natural and exact sciences is like a paradise
they can never enter, but linguistics is creating small bridge
 anthropologists had long hoped to develop an ethnographic method that produced
testable and replicable results (linguists do have machines that can help predict
outcomes, similar to a natural-science experiment)
common way of thinking:
o only 2 partners (language and culture)
o "Is it language which influences culture?" or "Is it culture which influences language?"
o In reality, both language and culture are products of activities which are basically similar
o Third party = the human mind
o

*Note: pg 329. most anthropological theories point to methods of describing cultures or methods of
determining relations between different parts of culture. to Levi-Strauss, point of structuralism is to examine
relations among elements of culture and ultimately describe the nature of the human mind itself. To him, all
cultures (and languages) are products of human thinking and by decoding and comparing cultures, Strauss
hopes to accurately describe the fundamental nature of human thought
o
o
o
In theoretical terms, there should be relation between language and culture because language
has taken thousands of years to develop, so has culture, and both processes have been taking
place side by side within same mind
 is it possible to have separate sections within mind that are unconnected?
 problem with what level to look at correlations between
 problem with what things we are trying to correlate
eg) Oneida have two different prefixes for womankind and speakers of this language are
unable to think of women as "belonging to one logical category." So, he assumes that
categories of language indeed represent categories of thought (like Sapir and Whorf)... and
 illustrations of behavior and language as parallel means of categorizing the same data
Levi-Strauss' example of the "atom" of kinship (containing mother, father, son, and mother's
brother). This is way too confusing to try to explain, so if you're curious, look on page 33132 and the footnote #13.
 no direct correlation between this and linguistics here, but the anthropologist works
parallel to the way the linguist does

Bringing in Whorf's hypothesis



Whorf has tried to establish correlation between certain linguistic structures and certain cultural
structures
o this approach is unsatisfactory to Levi-Strauss (Strauss suggests that he's trying to correlate
components of two separate levels)
(explains very complex systems of kinship and mythology of Hopi, Acoma, and Zuni, but i can't
really understand what he means. this next example is much more simplistic)
ex.) linguists discover new ways of expressing the idea of time in a language, but Whorf's attempt is
like trying to compare the way of expressing time on the linguistic level with the way of expressing
time on the kinship level. maybe you can connect them, but maybe not. Even though they may be
correlated(ie related, but in a parallel way), they may not be connected directly, but rather in two
separate levels that follow the same mental ideas/concepts ( I think this is what he's saying. sorry it's
so confusing)

[Levi-Strauss is trying to give examples of how an anthropologist can try to find common
ground with a linguist]

Levi-Strauss describes the 1. Marriage rules, 2.social organization, and 3. kinship system of both the
1. Indo-European Area and 2.Sino-Tibetan area (eg Chinese kinship system)
o Indo European world:
 marriage systems link any number of separate groups
 family systems are characterized by extended families but can't operate according to a
set rule fixed and eternal for all members of all groups
 kinship systems are egocentric. Meaning that the more distant an individual is from a
person, the less well that person we be able to describe their relationship
o Sino-Tibetan world
 marriage systems are either the same as in the Indo-European area or link only even
numbers of groups
 characterized by clans rather than extended families
 kin systems have a great many terms by which people can describe relationships at
large genealogical distances
Levi-Strauss believes that he shows the differences between Indo-European and Sino-Tibetian
languages are similar to the differences between the kinship systems common in these areas.
as any scholar can find connections between any two sets of three ideas, ate they real connections?
or just created by scholar's thinking?


Conclusion


It is impossible that there is absolutely no connection between culture and language as well as
impossible that they are 100% correlated
o if 0% - human mind just a jumble of stuff
o if 100% we'd be aware and no need for discussion
Levi-Strauss believes there is some kind of correlation between certain things on certain levels, and
our task is to determine what these things are and what these levels are, which can only be achieved
through the close cooperation of linguists and anthropologists.

The result will not benefit one party so much as a broader understanding of man that incorporates
all the different approaches possible and will then give us a clue as to how the human mind works
(the uninvited guest)
“Four Winnebago Myths: A Structural Sketch”
By Levi-Strauss (Reader 338-345)
Tribute to the work of Paul Radin “The culture of the Winnebago: As Described by Themselves”

Claims that Radin has the gift of “French flair, the gift of singling out those facts,
observations, and documents which possess and especially rich meaning, sometimes
undisclosed at first, but likely to become evident as one ponders the implications woven into
the material” (This is examination of Radin’s studies)
The four myths:




Each obtained from different informants
Still a deep unity underlies all 4
One noted by Radin to widely differ in content, style, and structure (#4)
Levi-Strauss’ aims:
o Analyze the structural relationships between the 4 myths
o Suggest that they can be grouped together not only because they are part of a
collection of ethnographic and linguistic data referring to one tribe (Radin’s purpose)
but because they are of the same genre (their meanings logically complement each
other
 Again myths of aboriginal societies ideal for Strauss b/c less “cultural
interference” than stories from Western industrial societies
 To him, the outward story line is irrelevant,
 but by analyzing logical relationships between elements of the myth, believes
he can get at unconscious message the myth conveys
Myth 1: “The Two Friends Who Became Reincarnated: The Origin of the Four Nights’ Wake.”
“This is the story of two friends, one of them a chief’s son, who decide to sacrifice their lives for the
welfare of the community. After undergoing a series of ordeals in the underworld, they reach the
lodge of Earthmaker, who permits them to become reincarnated and to resume their previous lives
among their relatives and friends”

[Radin]: underlying native theory = every individual entitles to specific quota of years of life
and experience. If die before his time, relatives can ask spirits to distribute among them what
he failed to utilize
Levi-strauss adds:

The two as successful social beings feel obliged to repay their fellow tribesmen who have
treated them so well.
o Unaware of reincarnation cycle and role it would play for all? Only rumor (a little
confused here)



By giving up one full life, gain an indefinite succession of half-lifes (b/c of reincarnation).
The unlived halves of their lives increase the life expectancy of the rest of the ordinary
people. Thus, everyone gains in the process
When heroes willingly die for sake of his people, they die without responsibility of their own
but instead with responsibility of others. The others will inherit the part of their lives that
were left unspent and the heroes are allowed to return to the earth and the process will be
repeated again.
In order to pass the test of the Old Woman, who rids the soul of all the recollections
belonging to its earthly life, each soul must be caring and attentive not of its own welfare but
of the welfare of the living members of the group.
“Double opposition”


Ordinary life (full life-span, nonrenewable) vs. heroic life (gamble with life for benefit of
group)
Straight and final death vs. swinging between life and death (reincarnation)
o If one wants full life, get full death. If one renounces life and seeks death, increases
the full life of his fellow-tribesmen and secures state of indefinite series of half-lives
and half-deaths
Levi-Strauss believes in Hegelian idea that the structure of human perception is dialectical. He looks for
binary oppositions in his analyses of the myths. Here, the opposition between life and death is mediated by
reincarnation [the synthesis] and myth’s message is derived from the logical relationships between patterns of
such oppositions.
Myth 2: “The Man Who Brought His Wife Back from Spiritland”



Hero (husband) again ready to sacrifice his unspent lifespan, but not as benefit for group.
Benefit for one (wife)
Not aware at first that by sacrifice, would “secure a new lease on life for both his dead wife
and himself” Had he been aware, key element of sacrifice missing.
In both cases: sacrifice for sake of others means life regained for self-appointed victim as
well as the one or more persons for whom the sacrifice was done
Myth 3: “The Journey of the Ghost to Spiritland, as Told in the Medicine Rite”




Belongs to religious society
Explains how members of Medicine Rite undergo several tests in Spiritland after death,
which they overcome and gain right to become reincarnated
Appears to be no sacrifice, but Medicine Rite members spend lives in symbolic sacrifice.
Difference is that primary beneficiary is self
Myth 4: “How an Orphan Restored the Chief’s Daughter to Life”


Different from other 3 and unusual for Winnebago mythology
Story: “The daughter of a tribal chief falls in love with an orphan, dies of a broken heart and
is then restored to life by the orphan who must submit to and overcome certain tests, not in
spiritland but here, on earth, in the very lodge in which the young woman died.”
1. Seems to refer to highly stratified society
2. To understand plot, one assumes that society women occupied a high position
and that, possible, descent was matrilineal


3. The tests in Winnebago myth take place, as a rule, in the land of ghosts occur on
earth in this instance.
Radin dismisses the explanations that it was a borrowed European tale or that the myth was
invented by some Winnebago radical, and concludes that it must belong to “a very old
stratum of Winnebago history.” He also suggests divine vs. human tales
Strauss seeks to logically analyze the structural relationship – if any – which prevails between
this 4th myth and the other 3.
****[Here we see Levi-Strauss having to recognize Boasian Particularism,
but not giving full credit. He still sticks to French Structuralism]****
o Levi-Strauss thinks that after the publication of Boas’ Tsimshian Mythology, anthropologists
simply assume that there is a full correlation between the myths and the culture. Strauss
believes that this is going further than Boas intended
o Says Boas didn’t assume that myths of a culture automatically reflect the culture, but
rather tried to find how much of a culture actually did pass into the myths “and he
convincingly showed that some of it does.” Straus continues, “It does not follow that
whenever a social pattern is alluded to in a myth that this pattern must correspond to
something real which should be attributed to the past if, under direct scrutiny, the
present fails to offer an equivalent.” (pg 341)
 Strauss says must be correspondence between unconscious meaning of the
myth – the problem it tries to solve – and the conscious content it uses to
reach the end.
 This correspondence not necessarily a mirror-image, may be a
Transformation (or an “upside down” version of the apparent meaning)
[this is a psychoanalytic approach]
 If this is true, the reversal’s elements must come either from another
society (borrowed element) or from a past stage of the same society
(survival)
Levi-Strauss’s take on Myth 4 in relation to the other 3
The four myths show the following propositions:
a. Ordinary people live (their full lives) and die (their full deaths)
b. Positive extraordinary people die (earlier) and live (more) [shown in myths 1, 2,
and 3]
c. Negative extraordinary people are able neither to live nor die [shown in myth 4]
o The fourth myth is like an inverted demonstration of the truths shown in the other myths
o May agree with Radin that it shows “unusual” features in relation to other 3, but
difference seems to be more logical than sociological or historical nature
o New opposition between “ordinary” life and “extraordinary” life in terms os surplus
or lack
o “While the heroes of the first three myths are all overgifted, through social success,
emotions, or wisdom, the heroes of the fourth myth are, if one may say so, ‘below
standard,’ at least in one respect.” (342)
Boy
Girl
o Chief’s daughter has high social position, but so high she is cut off from the rest of
the group and paralyzed when it comes to expressing her feelings. Her exalted
position makes her a defective human being, lacking an essential attribute of life.
o The boy is also defective, but socially (orphan and poor)
 Both high in one respect but low in another. (symmetrical but inverted)
Stauss claims this “ belongs to the realm of ideological constructs rather
than of sociological systems”
 Also men and women have inverted positions

Position
Nature
Culture
Death
Life/Death
Inversion
+ (overgifted)
Dies a social
death in that he
[miraculous
– (undergifted) stays alone when
Originally
“He who
hunter,
refuses to follow
overtly above,
overcame death,
privileged
[socially low,
villagers when
but becomes
proves unable to
relations with
poor and an
they decide to
below in grave
live”
natural worldorphan]
move away and
world of
abandon grave
animals]
– (undergifted)
[lacking ability
“She who was
Originally
to communicate
+ (overgifted)
Dies a natural
unable to live
overtly below,
and express her
death
cannot die; her
[high social
but becomes
feelings because
ghost lingers ‘on
status]
above in lodge
cut off. Prefers
earth’”
to die rather
than speak]

“the heroes, equally unable to die or to live, will assume an intermediate
identity, that of twilight creatures living under the earth but also able to come
up on it; they will be neither men nor gods, but wolves, that is ambivalent
spirits combining good and evil features.
****The opposition of nature and culture is one of the fundamental principles of
French Structuralist thought and finds expression in a variety of forms****
Conclusions of myth 4
o Society of the myth appears stratified only because the two heroes are conceives as a pair of
opposites, but they are both opposites in the view of nature and in culture. Thus it isn’t sociological
form, but a “projection of a logical structure wherein everything is given both in opposition
and correlation.”
o Myth 4 is an inverted demonstration of the truths shown in the others
o A plot and its component parts shouldn’t be interpreted by themselves nor relative to something
outside the realm of the myths
o They are substitutions understandable only with reference to the group made up of
all the myths of the same series
o Radin’s perceived problem of the tests of the ghosts on the earth instead of the usual spiritland:
o Two heroes suffer from state of under-life (in respect either to culture or nature) so the
ghosts become a kind of super-dead.
o The myth’s problem is resolved on an intermediary level, where humans become
underground animals and ghosts linger on earth.
o Tells of people who are from the start half-alive and half-dead. (other myths emphasize
the opposition between life and death in beginning and resolve it at the end.)
o Meaning: In order to be overcome, the opposition between life and death should be
acknowledged, or else the ambiguous state will persist indefinitely
o Segregations from the group are willfully sought, so the action unrolls against the
group
Conclusion:
o Myths all belong to one group and need to be understood as such
o Myths deal with extraordinary in opposition to ordinary fate (although all of these discussed
fit into extraordinary)
o Positive and negative
o Categorized by how respond to tests and relationship of hero within social group
Applications and conclusions:



“Levi-Strauss has done anthropology a tremendous service by outlining a methodology for
the sorting of anthropological data. As a method of analysis, structuralism can lead to
valuable interpretive insights where other theoretical perspectives may fail”
o Provides a heuristic device/model, in a sense, that helps others to see and analyze
Structuralism fails as a means of proving the binary structure of the mind.
o His “reality” is unconscious, so unverifiable.
Following a typical French structuralist approach, Levi-Strauss’ comparative method
chooses the pieces of traditions of beliefs from different societies that fir his view regardless
of the cultural context in which these elements are found. He also interprets these myths
without giving full context, full text, or any background info on Winnebago society.
o Cultural context thought to be irrelevant, just “cultural interference” to the
unconscious structure thought to be universal