Refuting Structuralism

Now that I have exhausted a large amount of structuralism and structuralist ideology and examples I think it is a good a time as any to discuss possible flaws in the structuralist argument. In this instance I will again turn to Dominic Strinati and a chapter he wrote about some of the key problems. For this he turns directly to Levi-Strauss (picture) and his structuralist arguments. Strinati writes that Levi-Strauss’s ideas, “lack empirical validity” (107) and that his ideas are, “supported by a highly selective and very partial use of examples, that they are simply not based upon sufficient evidence or that they are so constructed as to be resistant to any kind of empirical refutation” (107). I guess I have to support Strinati here, but with hesitation. This is because in the case of any argument anyone may make, they will obviously select examples that support their case as opposed to ones that don’t. So while this claim is valid by Strinati, it can be made for any theory.

Another complaint that Strinati highlights is that Levi-Strauss’s, “ideas are too abstract and theoretical” (107). He argues that Levi-Strauss is too wrapped up in his theoretical “cerebral exercises” (107) and that he does not place enough focus on empirical research. I would disagree here with Strinati. Perhaps, this is true for Levi-Strauss’s research, but I think that through the examples, texts and theories I have cited that there are real, true, empirical and substantial reference points for structuralism. And by outlining these I have made it clear that I am not just taking part in brainstorming or cerebral exercises like Strinati suggests.

Strinati points out two more problems with Levi-Strauss. “First, it neglects the material process of production whereby societies reproduce themselves, and thereby reproduce their cultures. Second, it reduces culture to a mental structure and so neglects its complexity and its historical and social specificity” (Strinati 107). I feel as if Strinati has a point here, specifically his first about cultural reproduction. Perhaps structuralism is not a theory that applies to a person’s deep-rooted unconscious. Maybe as Strinati suggests, it is just that cultures copy themselves on a consistent basis. Maybe there are only a certain set of ideas and they just get repeated because that’s the way culture is. I still believe that this would be structuralism it would just be accidental structuralism.

Finally, and I feel most suitable for the final criticism, Strinati asks how anyone can understand and quantify structuralism if it appeals to our unconscious. Strinati asks, “How is it possible to validate the causal influence of something which is unconscious?” (109). This is a great point and brings back the idea of he iceberg. The deep structure and unconcious being the iceberg that is under the water. Does this exist and what affect does it have. Does the submerged iceberg part really matter? The unconscious is unknown. Does it exist? How does it work? All these claims can lead to answers that render structuralism useless, as there may be no unconscious for structuralist ideas to appeal to. So I guess the structuralist debate boils down to an unconscious belief? What do you think readers? Let me know!

News and Notes: This is hilarious. DRAMATIC LOOK GOPHER!, enough said.