Search icone
Search and publish your papers

Structuralism and history: Levi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

Level
Advanced

About the document

Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
presentations
Pages
10 pages
Level
Advanced
Accessed
2 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction.
  2. Levi-Strauss and universal structuralism.
    1. History in structuralism.
    2. The methodological priori assumption.
    3. The role of history: As a discipline.
    4. Levi-Strauss' introduction of potential contradictions into his model.
  3. Althusser and historical structuralism.
    1. Althusser critiques in Reading Capital.
    2. Althusser attempt to synthesize its two objectives.
    3. Levi Strauss' structuralism.
    4. What happens with the capitalist mode of production.
  4. Foucault: The definition of a new project.
  5. Conclusion.
  6. Bibliography.

Structuralism may originate from Saussurian linguistics. In the Course of General Linguistics, Saussure defines one essential methodological principle: in response to previous methodologies, which defined historical evolution as the main object of linguistics, Saussure assumes that language must be studied as a system, not a history. To him, one cannot understand the inherent logic of a language by studying its origins, for language is a self-sufficient organized whole. This apparent distinction between history and structure substantially modified linguistics; especially, it introduces a very strong division between synchrony and diachrony. Synchrony, as a time of a relative immobility of language, would permit to explain the system, while diachrony, would describe its modifications. Historical and structural problems, therefore, appeared to be mutually exclusive.
Thus, if we define broadly structuralism as the theoretical perspective that tries to describe its objects as the combination of elements combined in overall structures, structuralism seems to have difficult relations with history. This exclusion appeared to be problematic, from the moment the structuralist approach has been extended to other social sciences. I will try here to explicit these relations. I chose to focus on three main authors related to that issue: Levi-Strauss, Althusser and Foucault. Levi-Strauss, by trying to integrate Saussurian methods to the domain of anthropology, opened a debate that goes largely beyond linguistics. He clearly adopts the label of structuralist, and can be considered a ?classical? structuralist. The cases of Althusser and Foucault are more ambiguous, for both of them explicitly rejected this. There are undoubtedly significant differences between those authors; and Foucault and Althusser are not structuralists as Levi-Strauss is; however we can integrate them to the question, for they often have been ?willingly or not ? described as structuralists, and are clearly linked to the debate of structuralism.

[...] What is the interest of such a remark in our investigation of the relations between structuralism and history? This division seems for the moment to be only methodological and do not apparently deal with the consideration of historical evolutions by structuralism. This becomes clear, as soon as we try to explicit the theoretical frame that underlies these methodological propositions. But to do so, we first have to see how Levi-Strauss completes its distinction between history and anthropology. He describes as following the goal of the two disciplines: the historian, transition from the explicit to the implicit; to the anthropologist, transition from the particular to the universal?. [...]


[...] The synchronic in Levi-Strauss, for Althusser, is the present inasmuch as it contains a structure that inherently integrates the past and the future. To understand that, we have to focus on the notion of ?essential section'. Hegel is responsible for having proposed the idea that ?nothing can run ahead of its which means that everything is contained in the present, since the present is a necessary stage of future developments. With Hegelianism, if one can provide an ?essential section' of the present, i.e. [...]


[...] ?Rather than trying to reduce others to silence, by claiming that what they say is worthless, I have tried to define this blank space from which I speak, and which is slowly taking shape in a discourse that I still feel to be so precarious and so unsure.? In his explicit position, Foucault avoids dealing with the old question of structuralism more than he criticizes it. He even seems to recognize, to a certain extent and for certain fields only, the efficiency of structuralist methods. [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

What is 'Postmodernism'?

 Social studies   |  Sociology   |  Term papers   |  03/05/2009   |   .doc   |   6 pages

Top sold for business strategy

Megacorp's Crane Manufacturing company (CMC) operations analysis

 Business & market   |  Business strategy   |  Presentation   |  08/05/2017   |   .doc   |   7 pages

International Business Strategy - Acer, Inc.: Taiwan's rampaging dragon

 Business & market   |  Business strategy   |  Case study   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   8 pages