Thijs Verkest Social theory In this paper I would like to take a look at the theories of both Claude Lévi-Strauss and Jacques Lacan. I want to do this because I’m interested in how these theories make use of Saussure’s structuralism. I think it could be interesting to compare Lacan’s theory, which is a psychoanalyst theory with Lévi-Strauss, which is a Structuralist theory and see how they used Saussure’s theory for 2 different reasons. Therefore, I aim to first take a look at Lévi-Strauss since he was also a structuralist and then Lacan and finally end with a look at Saussure’s theory. Lévi-Strauss Like I already mentioned in the preview, Lévi-Strauss was a structuralist. He was the first author to transfer Saussure’s theory from Linguistics to anthropology . Before Lévi-Straus was introduced to Saussure’s theory by Roman Jakobson, the main influences for his theory were Emile Durkheim and Marcel Mauss. Lévi-Strauss breakthrough work was “The Elementary Structure of Kinship” In this book he uses Structural anthropology to try to understand the relations of people in families by looking at the logical structures the relationships are based on . Lévi-Strauss argues that kinship is actually based on an alliance two …show more content…
This view relies heavily on Saussure’s concept of “Valeur”. The valeur, or value, of a sign is dependent on the relationship that sign has with other signs. Likewise the identity of the members in a family is dependent on the relationship between the members instead of the members themselves. With his structural approach to anthropology Lévi-Strauss tried to make something akin to how structuralist see phonology. He argued that just like phonology, structuralist anthropology has to try to understand the underlining rules of human relations in order to simplify the data and make predictions based upon the rules that govern human
The idea of “family” is almost entirely socially constructed. From grandparents, to friends, to wives and fiancés, the means by which we decide who is related to us and who is not is decided by the person and their milieu. In Mignon R. Moore’s “Independent Women: Equality in African-American Lesbian Relationships”, Eviatar Zerubavel’s Ancestors and Relatives: Genealogy, Identity and Community, and Franz Kafka’s The Judgement, this idea is tested. Who do we consider close enough to us to share our most intimate details and how do we choose them? Each piece offers a different view, which is the “right” way for each of the people described, whether broad (as in Zerbavel’s reading) or specific (as in Moore’s reading), but there are also many similarities in the ways family is defined and actualized.
In the book, ‘American Kinship, A Cultural Account’, by David. M. Schneider, we find that he lays down the basic tenets for which a kinship ties, is considered to be
Felluga, Dino. "Modules on Lacan: On Desire." Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. Date March 11, 2003. Purdue U. March 23, 2003. <http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/psychoanalysis/lacandesire.html>.
Lacan’s theory is a form of structuralism because it expansively talks about the tenets of human culture. As advanced by the structuralism theory, human culture is understood from the idea that, there is a larger relationship between structures of human existence. Lacan posits that human culture stems from its relationship with overarching systems. Lacan’s theory argues that human phenomena do not have value without the relationship that ensues with other structures. In other words, Lacan is candid that culture is a product of the systems of structure that build up to a larger structure. According to Lacan, human existence derives its understanding from its ability to develop interrelations. Indeed, Lacan’s psychoanalysis theory has a form of structuralism embedded in it by looking deeply into his ideas about human interactions. According to him, “the unconscious is the discourse of the other”. This implies that human desires are structured in relation to the feelings of others. Psychoanalysis, according to Lacan, is the idea that human culture results from social interaction. In this respect, desire is a social phenomenon that links humans with other structures that form human culture. It is the structural interaction of human desire with other components of human culture, which makes Lacan’s theory a form of structuralism. Linking the space between people in a social-psychoanalysis approach is a form of structuralism. In reference to this idea, it is worth noting that the ability to connect people in a cultural dimension calls for a structural comprehension between different tenets like language and economics. As advanced by Lacan, for instance, capitalism and economics are significant components of human culture that influe...
The incest taboo has long proved a problem for social scientists, and it is no different for Levi-Strauss. In numerous articles, Levi-Strauss attempts to reconcile nature and culture in the prohibition against incest. Although he does this effectively, and his conclusion seems valid, the way that he arrives at it opens his work, structuralism, and social science in general up to larger critiques. The critique of social science is not about the conclusions reached but about the seeming inability of the social scientist to overcome or even put through a rigorous and thorough examination the concepts inherent in their work.
... The structural functional theory states, the framework for building theory that sees society as complex whose parts work together to promote stability and solidarity. This statement could not be truer when it comes to the movie Gran Torino. From the beginning of the movie to the end you see a character evolve from a racist, selfish and ignorant individual to an understanding individual. All of the aspects in society such as, religion race and culture are truly what makes the world go round. If Walt was never able to put aside his cultural background, views and beliefs he would have never gotten the opportunity to experience the Hmong culture. Just goes to show you that maybe if people made a greater effort to get to know one another through the sociological perspective, perhaps people would be more accepting of one another which in turn would make society stronger.
(9) David Michael Levin has an interesting, recent interpretation along these lines; see his "Liberating Experience from the Vice of Structuralism: The Methods of Merleau-Ponty and Nagarjuna," Philosophy Today, vol. 41, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 96-111.
Schlipp, Paul Arthur ed. The Philosophy Of Jean-Paul Sartre. The Library of Living Philosophers Vol. XVI, La Salle, Ill: Open Court 1981.
Throughout history we have seen that family values have been one of the most important aspects of societies around the world. Although these values may be different from one another, we can see that it is a ma...
As a reader it is difficult to separate ones analysis of such a commanding piece of work from ones own constructed systems of meaning. Because of this, actual meaning is tricky to assert with certainty as it is subject to change as easily as reality is subject to influence. This may be beside the point, however; for it seems as though what matters in structuralism is the recognition that everyone, and everything everyone creates or does, is in some part connected to a system of meaning which informs and influences varying interpretations of what is real and true of the world and its diverse inhabitants.
Peter Barry attempts to define structuralism succinctly by narrowing it down as “the belief that things cannot be understood in isolation—they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of”; he goes on to add that “meaning is always an attribute of things, in the literal sense that meanings are ATTRIBUTED to the things by the human mind, not contained within them” (39). One might attempt to further narrow this idea (ironically) by quoting the famous line, “Everything is relative,” which is to say, all reality is contingent upon the perceiver. The context in which that reality is being perceived becomes the point of interest, so that, in regard to literature, “there is a constant movement away from the interpretation of the individual literary work and a parallel drive towards understanding the larger, abstract structures which contain them” (Barry, 40). The question becomes not what, but how.
Lacan’s psychoanalysis is concerned above all with the relation between the self and the other. It is a deep and searching analysis in all its details of the process of identity formation and the creation of the image of oneself as part of the formation of the image of the other. A number of ideas of Freud form part of the syntax of lacan’s ideas. These ideas of psychoanalysis and various other kinds of identity theory, aim at a deep analysis of the innde drives of the human psyche. These are the life drive and the death drive, drives and the psyche which they constitute are held to be made up of a number of levels. These are the conscious the semi conscious and the unconscious level, the level of pure instinct. These different levels at which
Structuralism was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in the mid-twentieth century (Cuddon and Preston 923). This creation was brought on, in part, by the French existentialism period and is often combined with the semiotic theory of literary criticism; both are the source of development for other literary criticisms from the formalist schools of thought. As the name suggests, structuralism examines the structure of the work, investigating the ramifications of the organizations of literatures (McManus, 1998). As an image to portray this idea is examining the structure of a building and comparing it to the structures of other buildings in its surroundings, and then subsequently comparing the common features of those buildings to buildings from other cultures and what those architectural discrepancies represent (Brizee and Tompkins, 2011).
The structural theory of poverty is composed of four parts that include, economic, social, cultural, and political. The economic part is based on a capitalist system (power asymmetry) “wealth for some and poverty for others”. The social part is family, neighborhood, and the people you associate with. Culture is symbolic way we represent things. And finally the political aspect sates that poor people have little power. The poor are poor due to lack of political and economic power. The structural theory is superior to the individualistic theory because the individualistic theory blames poverty on the poor themselves using biogenetic, human capital, and cultural views. Bad genes = low intelligence= poverty. This could be seen as racist and today as we know it race is socially constructed meaning the structural theory explains poverty
Hutter, M. (1985) "Symbolic Interaction and the Study of the Family" In Foundations of Interpretive Sociology: Studies in Symbolic Interaction, ed. H. A. Farberman and R. S. Perinbanayagam. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press