Article contents
Extract
There are obviously two groups of structuralists. There are the original quiet ones, led by Lévi-Strauss and Lacan, and the new noisy ones, propagating ‘neo-structuralism’ with its political message.
Already last year this process of degeneration was apparent in France. Le Monde for the 30th November had a special section of comment and opinion called: ‘Was structuralism killed by the movement of May?’ Its general conclusion seems to be that it was.
With the publication of Qu'est-ce que le structuralisme?, a series of essays from various hands, published late last year, it is apparent that the work of the original structuralists cannot be brought together into any meaningful synthesis. Their key concepts are meanwhile being misapplied.
It may seem incredible that such a promising idea as the original concept of structuralism can have been side-tracked so soon, long before any adequate understanding of what it was has penetrated into our discussions in this country.
Yet it is the case. Qu'est-ce que le structuralisme? is only the last, and poorest, attempt to give a unity to something which defies unification. In the last two or three years we have seen appear Clefs pour le Structuralisme, by Jean-Marie Auzias (1967); Comprende le structuralisme, by J-B. Fages (1967); A Quoi sert la Notion de ‘Structure’ ? by Raymond Boudon (1968); Le Structuralisme (in the series Qtie sais-je?) by Jean Piaget (1968); and last and most formidable of all, Claude Lévi-Strauss ou la ‘Passion de I'Inceste'.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1969 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers
References
page 533 note 1 Qu'est‐ce que le structuralisme? by Oswald Ducrot, Tzvetan Todorov, Dan Sperber, Moustafa Safouan and François Wahl, Editions du Seuil, 1968, 448 pp., 29f.
page 543 note 1 See my Introduction to Lévi‐Strauss's Totemism, Penguin Books, 1969; and ‘Lévi‐Strauss: Myth's Magician’, New Blackfriars, May, 1969. The latter article is a study of the three volumes of Mythologiques (1964, ‘66, ’68) and their inter‐relations.
- 1
- Cited by