Post The First: Define, Explain, Disseminate Ideas!

Hello to all out there in the Internet ether! This is Maxmillien coming to you with his kick off post for Nothing New Out There: Structuralism In Pop Culture. Here, my goal is to expose our modern pop culture for what it is… Structuralist!

Now clearly you’re all wondering, what is this “structuralism” term he keeps throwing about and what does it have, if anything, to do with pop culture today? Well, there’s a simple answer. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Structuralism can be defined as when surface phenomenons are explained by deep ones. For example, look at the iceberg below. It shows that almost 90% of the berg is underwater. These ‘hidden’ depths can be seen as the icebergs defining parts, not the little part that pokes out of the water. If we extrapolate this metaphor to pop culture one can think of what one sees on the movie screen as the little part that pokes up. But what is more important is the part of the movie we don’t see, the deep structures, the inherent myths, the things that play to our – as Freud calls it – unconscious mind! This would help say, a movie, because it could use these deep structures of your unconscious to make a movie that they know you would like.

But, before we dive into the nitty gritty, let’s take some more time to flush out this term “structuralism.” A term that has been around since the second half of the 2oth Century, Structuralism’s “fore father” is linked to Ferdinand deSaussure (although Marx and Levi-Strauss should receive some kudos too!). Dominic Strinati in his book An Introduction To Theories Of Popular Culture (a book I will reference a lot throughout my blogging process) explains that structuralism can be defined as, “a theoretical and philosophical framework relevant to the social sciences as a whole, which stresses the universal, casual character of structures” (78). Additionally, Strinati quotes the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought that defines structuralism as “a movement characterized by a preoccupation not simply with structures but with such structures as can be held to underline and generate the phenomena that come under observation...with deep structures rather than surface structures…referable [according to Levi-Strauss] to basic characteristics of the mind” (78). Clearly we can see the idea that there are deep structures, linked to our mind that can be observed and studied. For another take lets turn to Philip Pettit and his book, The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis where he explains structuralism, “claims to provide a framework for organizing and orienting any ‘semiological’ study, any study concerned with the production and perception of meaning” (Preface). It is evident that we are trying to unearth some underlying framework, but it must be noted that these frameworks and structures are universal! Strinati explains that, “structuralism claims that mental and cultural structures are universal, and that their causal effects give rise to observable social phenomena” (79). This fact is supported by evidence that if one visits a culture cut off from most civilization, the stories they tell, and myths they have, will have similar if not identical plots and morals.

It must also be noted that Saussure also divides structuralism into two distinct parts; langue and parole. Langue, which, “refers to the system of language; the rules and conventions which organize it” (Storey 88) and parole which, “refers to the individual utterance, the individual use of language” (Storey 88-89) are an important way to discuss structuralism. Again, let’s use a metaphor!!!! John Storey, in his book Cultural Theory and Popular Culture suggests the example of chess. In the game of chess, there are the basic rules that form the game (langue) and then the actual moves that a player makes (parole). You know the Knight moves in an L shape (langue), but whether you choose to use it is your parole.

To end this post and discussion of Structuralism, I will end with an extended quote from Storey.

“Structuralism takes two basic ideas from Saussure’s work. First, a concern with the underlying relations of texts and practices, the ‘grammar’ which makes meaning possible. Second, the view that meaning is always the result of the interplay of relationships of selection and combination made possible by the underlying structures” (Storey 89).

News and Notes: I will end each post with this section. A place for other ideas and general thing I find important. Not necessarily directly about structuralism, theory and criticism that I feel is important.

Here is a great YouTube video I found of Chomsky and Foucault discussing social, economic and state structures and their relations. A must watch!