The Origins of Levi-Strauss's Structuralism

THE ORIGINS OF LEVI-STRAUSS'S STRUCTURALISM
Author(s): Simon Clarke

Source: Sociology, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 1978), pp. 405-439
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42852027
Accessed: 09-05-2015 17:48 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Sat, 09 May 2015 17:48:38 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE
ORIGINS
OF
LEVI-STRAUSS'S
STRUCTURALISM
Simon Clarke
ofLvi-Strauss's
withtheintellectual
Thepaperis concerned
Abstract
structuraorigins
thatitconsists
I define
thisstructuralism,
offarmorethana
section
lism.Inthefirst
arguing
anda theory
ofmanin society.
method,
byan epistemology
beingunderpinned
simple
cannotbe seenas theapplication
I arguefurther
thatthisstructuralism
of a method
ofLvi-Strauss's
thatthe'structural'
inlinguistics,
first
aspects
indicating
pioneered
major
derive
Structures
rather
from
Gestalt
theoretical
work,TheElementary
ofKinship
psychology
thanfrom
linguistics.
thatLevi-Strauss's
In thebulkofthepaperI seekto demonstrate
structuralism
infact
inthelight
ofthenewly
hasitsorigins
intheattempt
toadaptDurkheimian
found
sociology
of theinter-war
of French
radicalliberalism
individualism
characteristic
years.This
ofexchange
MarcelMauss'stheory
is achieved
to an indivibysubmitting
adaptation
ofpsycho-analysis
andanti-historicist
rationalist
and
dualist,
bymeansinitially
critique,
ofGestalt
TheElementary
Structures
combines
thistheory
ofKinship
psychology.
subsequently
ofthetheory
ofkinship
witha formalistic
interpretation
developed
bytheDurkheimian
I notethatthesignificance
In conclusion
MarcelGranet.
ofthediscovery
of
sociologist
was notthediscovery
of theconcept
forLvi-Strauss
of structure,
butits
linguistics
ofa radically
oftheunconscious
intellectualist
as a formal
theory
provision
structuring
capacity.
method
andstructuralist
I. Structural
philosophy
is one of theoldestin thesocialsciences,it
Althoughtheconceptof 'structure'
is onlyin thelasttwentyyearsor so thata schoolof thoughtknownas 'structuralism'has grownup. The founderof thisschoolof thoughtin thesocialsciencesis
an anthropologist,
Lvi-Strauss.
in thesensethathe
Althoughan anthropologist,
has appliedhis theoretical
societies,Lviapproachto the studyof non-literate
Strauss's
forall thesocialsciences,sinceit purports
workis ofsignificance
to offer
a new,scientific,
approachto sociologicalexplanation.
The conceptof structure
is of much widersignificance
thanis the school of
thoughtwhichprivilegesthisconcept.It is not a conceptwhichhas a stableor
unambiguous
meaning.Fromthepresentpointof view,however,theconceptof
structure
thedesireto have a conceptof thewhole as something
expresses
greater
thanthesumof itspartswithouthavingrecourseto theconceptof thewhole as
of a quite different
order of
somethingemergent,somethingtranscendental,
406
SIMON CLARKE
theclaimthatthewhole
realityfromtheparts.The conceptof structure
expresses
is constituted
by therelationsbetweentheparts,and by nothingmorethanthose
The conceptexpresses,
an oppositionbothto atomismand to
relations.
therefore,
transcendentalism.
This conceptis foundin the'empiricist'
as comconceptionof socialstructure
of
relations
between
the
different
actors
or
institutions
in
prising
interdependence
the
relations
the
elements
the
between
of
structure
social
society,
representing
It is also foundin a 'positivisform,where the structure
interactions.
simply
correlations.
Finally,it is foundin functionalist
expressesstatistical
sociology,
wherethe relationsdo not have any necessaryempiricalcorrelates,
but express
relationsof functionalinterdependence,
the existenceof one institution,
for
the
existence
of
another.
example,implying
Lvi-Strauss
offersa different
conceptionof structure
accordingto which the
relationsbetweentheelementsof thestructure
are purelyformalrelations,
which
needhaveno empirical
than
the
elements
More
ofthe
this,
however,
counterparts.1
structure
haveno realitybeyondthestructure,
defined
are
themselves
they
by their
in
structure.
for
who
the
unlike
use the
others
Hence,
Lvi-Strauss,
participation
is
an
of
the
of
elucidation
structure
concept structure,
explanation providedby
alone. In traditional
uses of the conceptof structure
theelementsrelatedby the
structure
retaintheirautonomy.Hence,forthelatter,socialeventsare explained
as theresultof theactionof thepartsof society,on theone hand,and theirinteraction,on theother.
His conceptionof structure
as a specificmethod,a
constitutes
structuralism
'has
Lvi-Strauss
which
no
method,
stresses,
repeatedly
message':2
isnota philosophical
from
and
"Structuralism
buta method.
Itremoves
social
facts
doctrine,
experience
ofmodels
tothelaboratory.
There
itendeavours
them
intheform
them
torepresent
, always
transports
nottheterms,
intoconsideration
buttherelations
theterms.
between
taking
Itsubsequently
treats
eachsystem
ofrelations
asa particular
caseofother
realorsimply
systems,
possible,
andseeks
make
itpossible
topass
their
attheleveloftherules
which
global
explanation
oftransformation
oflinguistics
or
from
ascanbegrasped
observation
onesystem
toanother
such
system,
bytheconcrete
ethnography.
andnatural
Itthus
reconciles
thehuman
sciences
with
thephysical
sciences'.8
a philosophy,
ispresented
farfrom
asa scientific
achievement
before
therefore,
'Structuralism,
offering
isobliged
which
tobowdown'.4
philosophy
If structuralism
fromany
were simplysuch a method,it would be no different
remainsa
other abstractformalismwhich seeks relationswhose significance
and it would be unableto makeanyspecialclaimsto favour.For Lvimystery,
is notsimplya method,itis themethod
ofthehumansciences.
Straussstructuralism
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
407
It onlyavoidsthedangerofformalism
thattheformhas a content,
by itsassertion
indeedthattheformis thecontent.5
Structuralism
in preclearly,and quite explicitly,is distinctfromformalism
as
the
the
form
as
the
of
the
real.
Hence
the
content,
senting
property,
application
of the methodimpliesclaimswhich in turnhave a philosophicalorigin.The
on a priorcharacterization
of a
applicationof the methoddepends,therefore,
which
constitutes
the
of
the
social
and
human
indeed
a
sciences,
reality
object
characterization
whichconstitutes
man and societyas an objectfora science.
The
characterization
of suchan objectis priortothescienceand is therefore
a philosotask.
The
structural
within
it a
method,
therefore,
phical
necessarilyimplies
position.
philosophical
The philosophyhas two dimensions.It offersfirstly
an epistemologywhich
definestherelationbetweenknowledgeand itsobject.In Lvi-Strauss's
case this
not
a
is
defended, positivist
epistemology,
although self-consciously
epistemology
which sees the scientist
the facts'withoutallowingany theoretical
establishing
to decidewhethersomearemoreimportant
thanothers',6
and then
preconception
the
relations
between
models
The
condition
establishing
byexperimentation.7 very
oftheapplication
ofthestructural
methodis theexclusionoftheobserverfromthe
to societiesfromwhichthe
observed,and so themethodis onlyapplicablestrictly
observer
can distance
himself.8
Henceitwas in thestudyofdistant
societiesthatthe
structural
methodwas developed,societieswhichhad historically
been treatedas
our
own
objectsby
society.9
The philosophyalso includesa theoryof man in societywhich foundsthe
theoretical
as theessenceof thereal.For Lvi-Strauss
conceptionof thestructure
thestructure
is foundedin themindwhichimposesit on an amorphousexternal
is thatcultureand society
reality.As a theoryofcultureand societytheimplication
aretheproductsofthestructuring
oftheunconscious
mind.As a theoryof
activity
is thatmeaningderivesfromthisunconscious
meaningtheimplication
structuring
activity.10
In Lvi-Strauss's
handsstructuralism
is verymuchmore thana methodology,
as
it
does
an epistemology,
and a theoryof man in society,on thebasis
implying
oftheprivilege
accordedto a particular,
andverynarrow,conceptofstructure.
The
claimsof Lvi-Strauss's
structuralism
restmoreheavilyon itsassimilation
scientific
to a broaderscientific
movementthanon itsdirectachievements,
on theachievementsofstructuralism
in linguistics
ratherthanin thestudyofkinshipor ofmyth,
thescientific
value of Lvi-Strauss'
s contribution
to thelatterbeingsharplyand
verygenerallyquestioned.
In thiscontextit is not surprising
thatLvi-Strauss's
structuralism
is seenas the
ofa methodpioneeredsuccessfully
inlinguistics
to a new
productoftheapplication
field.It is thisview whichI wouldliketo contestin thispaper.In particular
I want
to arguethat The Elementary
Structures
, usuallypresentedas the first
of Kinship
sustained
methodin thesocialsciences,
owesverylittle
applicationofthestructural
408
SIMON CLARKE
but ratherdevelopsout of theattemptto mouldtheDurkheimian

to linguistics,
of a new age.
to theideologicalrequirements
tradition
in TheElementary
In factthereare veryfew signsof theimpactof linguistics
is onlyspecifically
oflinguistics
notedin theconcluding
. The significance
Structures
Structures
in 1943,whileitwas
Lvi-Strauss
beganwritingTheElementary
chapter.
of
that
became
the
of
he
convinced
'about
1944'
similarity 'rulesof marriage
only
b In his first
and 'thoseprevailingin linguistics'.
and descent*
publishedwork to
is
s
far
touch
from
Lvi-Strauss'
the
sure.cMoreover
betray linguistic
inspiration,
thelatterarticleactuallydeniesthatthemethodcan be appliedto terminologies,*1
In an articleof 1946linguistics
is still
applyingit ratherto thesystemof attitudes.
etc/
not especiallyprivileged,
history, beingpickedout
psychology,
'philosophy,
as thecomplementary
disciplines.
is ofgestaltist
in TheElementary
Structures
The conceptof structure
ratherthan
The
the
specifically
linguisticinspiration. regulatingprinciple, principleof reciis
andnotpurelyformal.It is thebasisofa synchronic
substantive
procity,
functional
The relationbetweenformand
a
itself
whole,
having physiologicalfoundation.
and notreduction/
substratum
is one of isomorphism
Behaviour,in
physiological
theformofexchange,seeksto achievean idealequilibrium
(accordingto thelaw of
stress
on
the
Lvi-Strauss
unconscious,and so antilays repeated
Prgnanz
8).
what
Gestalt
was
which
precisely
theoryintroduced.11
metaphysical,
teleology
of themodelfrom
Lvi-Strauss's
insulation
Gestalt
even
anticipated
Finally
theory
correlates.1
have
no
in
that
the
objective
reality
Gestaltqualitten
referenceto linguisticsin The Elementary
The only theoretically
significant
Structures
, apartfromtheverylastsection,makesa pointwhichhas alreadybeen
The primacyof relationsover
introducedby reference
to Gestaltpsychology.k
termsis referred
of
but
andtheconcept
to as a lessonnot linguistics ofpsychology,1
In the Prefacethe work is
of structure
co Gestaltpsychology."1
itselfreferred
has
movement.SubsequentlyLvi-Strauss
explicitlyassimilatedto the Gestaltist
in theGestalt
reaffirmed
therootsof his conceptof structure
,p and the common
the latterby reference
to
and anthropology,
gestaltist
originsof both linguistics
Benedictand Kroeberas well as hisown work.qThe gestaltist
approachwas welladaptedto hisconcerns.As Piagethas noted:
acknowa type
ofstructure
that
tothose
'thepsychological
Gestalt
who,whether
they
appeals
represents
or
thaimaybethought
forstructures
byhistory
"pure",
looking
unpolluted
ledgeitornot,arereally
from
thesubject.'1"
functionless
anddetached
genesis,
earlierworkrevealsveryclearlythathe
An attentive
readingof Lvi-Strauss's
In therest
ofstructural
structuralism
his
linguistics.
quiteindependently
developed
lie in
structuralism
of thispaperI wantto arguethattheoriginsof Lvi-Strauss's
thesearchfora new philosophywhichdominatedso manyofhiscontemporaries,
with Durkand so to a confrontation
which led Lvi-Straussto anthropology
heimiansociology.The collectivismof Durkheim'ssociologywas no longer
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
409
appropriatefor radicalliberalismin the inter-warperiod,and so Lvi-Strauss

turnedfirstto Freudin an attemptto give Durkheimiansociologya new indivirationalist
and anti-historicist
foundation.Freud,however,offered
dualistic,
only
thestarting
an
led Lvi-Strauss,
of
which
point
enterprise
throughGestalt
psychoto linguistics.
Whathe soughtin eachwas nota scientific
method,
logy,ultimately
buta conceptof man.
2. Theideological
reorientation
ofthe1930s.
Ifwe areto understand
Lvi-Strauss's
structuralism
itis necessary
to uncoverthe
theoretical
in
to
which
his
Lvi-Strauss
problems response
developed own theories.
Lack of publishedsourcesmakes this task a difficult
one. Available evidence
concernsthesocial,politicaland intellectual
in whichLvi-Strauss's
environment
on
the
one
and
his
own
works
hand,
thoughtemerged,
producedratherlater,on
theother.In thissectiontheattemptto bridgethegap betweenthetwo is necesratherthan'scientific',
It presumes
sarilya speculative,
interpretative,
enterprise.
thatLvi-Strauss's
was
moulded
the
intellectual
thought
by
problemsthrownup
his
social
and
situation.11
In
the
last
some
of theargument
will
by
political
analysis
be justifiedonlyifit illuminates
Lvi-Strauss's
workforthereader.
Lvi-Strauss's
work is theoretically
situatedvery firmlyin the Durkheimian
tradition.12
his
madeno positive
However,through yearsas a studentthistradition
on
he
in
and
arrived
Brazil
in
'in
rebellion
1934
impact him,13
againstDurkheim
and hisschool'.14
Lvi-Strauss
had come to anthropology
but
not throughthe Durkheimians,
North
American
has
made
it
However Lvi-Strauss
through
anthropology.15
clear
his
however
masters
in
that,
abundantly
great debtsto his NorthAmerican
relationto specifically
the latterprovidedmore an
anthropological
questions,16
thanan intellectual
tradition.18
inspiration17
Althoughwithinthe Durkheimiantradition,it was fromphilosophy,and
cameto thattradition,
and so an underphilosophical
problems,thatLvi-Strauss
of those
standingof his thoughtis possibleonlyon thebasisof an understanding
I hope to show how it was thatLvi-Strauss
problems.In thissection,therefore,
abandonedphilosophyfor anthropology,and so came to forgea distinctive
philosophical
anthropology.
Lvi-Strauss
was trainedas a philosopher.
he
However,likehiscontemporaries,
of hisprofessors.
These doctrines
were based on a
rejectedthereceiveddoctrines
ofcontinuity
andprogress
were
foundedin thesubject.'All ourteachers
philosophy
obsessedwiththenotionofhistorical
development. . . Philosophy. . . was a kind
of aestheticcontemplation
of consciousness
The Bergsonian
by consciousness'.19
whichwas dominantin Parisat the time,includeda fundamentally
philosophy,
irrational
of experiencebeingcounterposed
as theirrational
core,thecontinuity
of rationalthought.
realitybeneaththeconceptualconstructions
410
SIMON CLARKE
Such a philosophyof the progressiveand continuousdevelopmentof consabsurdto theyoungradical

ciousnesshad, by thelate 1920s,become manifestly
intotheuniversecreatedby thesubjectof
thinker.
Realitywas constantly
erupting
itscontinuity
and challenging
itsconceptionofprogress
consciousness,20
upsetting
and of history.Fromthe RussianRevolutionto the Hitlerputsch,as well as in
whichseemedto have no
Franceitself,historyhad becomea seriesof irruptions
of
the
the
context
of
in
It was
development self-consciousness.
progressive
meaning
themeaningof historythatwas in doubt.
ofthenew generation
was theappearancein 1932
The first
signoftherestlessness
and theman
ofLes Chiensde Gardeby Paul Nizan,an intimatefriendof Sartre,21
thatanthropology
shouldbe hisfield.22
who suggestedto Lvi-Strauss
However,
althoughtheproblemfacingtheseyoungmenandwomenwas a commonone,the
differed.
The need was to finda new basison whichman
solutionstheyoffered
in thecontextofan apparently
couldgraspthemeaningofhisindividualexistence
and ruptural
irrational
history.
Some remainedwithinthe Cartesiantraditionof Frenchphilosophy,seeking
theCartesianCogito,a taskaccomplished
by Sartrein Being
simplyto reinterpret
andNothingness.
and existentialist
The phenomenological
solutions,adoptedby Merleau-Ponty
andby Sartre,involveda rejectionoftheBergsonian
ofcognition,
ruled
separation
and
ruled
the
irrational
eternal
and
immutable
lan
by
by
categories23 experience,
vital Phenomenologysoughtto sweep away all the metaphysical
in
dressing a
is
the
of
which
an
returnto thebruterealityof existence
,
experience
experienceof
In
of
transcendence.
the
of
the
of
freedom,
concept existencethe
possibility
into
direct
contact
with
the
is
of theworld.
of
self
consciousness
facticity
brought
In Sartre'searlyexistentialism
it is thisexperienceof thetranscendence
of human
is
basis
The
itself
and
ofmeaning.
world
absurd without
existence
whichis thesole
meaning.The moraldutyoftheindividualisnotto imposemeaningon theworld,
but simplyto asserthis existenceas an individualin thefaceof the world. The
of meaningand of history,thepermanenceof culturalvalues,are all
continuity
is ofthemoment,'impossible
Lifeis forthemoment,consciousness
undermined.24
to construct
the
The absurdity
of
or even to predict'.25
positionof theindividual
withnothingto whichto commithimselfis fullyreflected
in Sartre'swork.
His
to it
however,rejectedphilosophyaltogether.26 commitment
Lvi-Strauss,
had neverbeenfirm,forhe did notseephilosophybeingable to replacescienceas
themeansbywhichwe canknowman.He believedthatphilosophy
shouldbe 'the
He
handmaidand auxiliaryof scientific
espouseda
exploration'.27 had,therefore,
'naive rationalism'
convictionsremainedunsincehis youth,and his rationalist
the Bergsonismof his
shaken.28
Hence while rejecting,like his contemporaries,
or existentialism.30
to phenomenology
he was not attracted
professors,29
In rejecting
turnedtowards
likeothersofhisgeneration,
Lvi-Strauss,
philosophy
sociology.And yet Frenchsociologywas as incapableof providinga theory
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
4II
to thefundamental
appropriate
problemsof the 1930sas was Frenchphilosophy.
Historyhad overtakenthedominantDurkheimianschoolof socialtheoryjust as
surelyas it had overtakenBergsonianphilosophy.Althoughthe Durkheimian
in thefieldoflaw and
schoolcontinuedto inspiresociologicalstudies,particularly
is
was
that
its
attention
focussed
it
on exotic
religion,
significant
increasingly
had lostitsimpetusas a socialtheory.Born in an age
societies.Durkheimianism
whenthe Stateof theThirdRepublicembodiedall thehopes of theliberaland
radicalintelligensia,
theDurkheimiancommitment
to thecivilizinginfluence
of
thecollectiveconsciencecouldnotsurvivethereductionof theThirdRepublicto
levelsborderingon the farcical.Commitmentto the collectivehad acquiredan
new meaningin thepost-warcontext.Commitmentto thecollective
altogether
could only mean commitmentto the Leagues of the right,subordination
of
individualto nationin a proto-fascist
or
commitment
to
the
Communist
ideology,
of theindividualto theworkingclass.For many
Partyon theleft,subordination
neitherestablished
youngFrenchintellectuals
philosophynorestablished
sociology
could offerthebasisforan adequateunderstanding
of man in theworld.History
had undermined
theveryfoundation
of both.
Thus we findin Franceat the end of the twentiesand throughthe thirties
a
fundamental
reorientation
of Frenchliberalculture,a questioningof received
ideology,and thedevelopmentof new socialtheories.In thesetheoriesthereis a
new emphasison individualism
and theproblemsof individualmorality31
which
the
collective
of
Durkheim*
s
with
its
search
a
for
social
work,
replaces
emphasis
this
reason
it
is
the
For
from
ranks
of
the
students
of
rather
morality.
philosophy
thanfromthoseof sociologythatthenew socialtheorists
emerged,forit was in
had beenpreserved.Howevertheideologicalcrisis
philosophythatindividualism
also involveda challengeto thereceivedphilosophies,
fortheindividualist
orientation of the latterwas adaptedto earlierideologicalstruggles.Hence the new
couldnotfinda socialtheoryreadymade.It is indicativethatso many
generation
had to go abroadfortheirinspiration.
Sartreturnedto Germanyto findHusserl
and Heidegger,Merleau-Pontyto findHusserland Lukacs and, later,Weber.
theFrenchto Hegel,in a semi-phenomenological
Kojve introduced
reading,and
theyoungMarx. Aron,like Lvi-Strauss,
leftphilosophyforsociology,finding
Weber in Germanyoffering
an alternative
to Durkheimiansociology,an alternativewhichbetterreflected
theproblemsof hisage. Only Lvi-Strauss
managed
to createa new synthesis
outof Frenchsociologyand philosophy,
withtheworkof
and to
Freud,just becomingknownin France,providingthemeansto transform
both.
integrate
Lvi-Strauss
Althoughrejecting
philosophyas a discipline,
by no meansturned
hisbackon philosophical
but
rather
to
answer
themon a new
questions,
attempted
An earlyinterest
terrain.32
in geology gave Lvi-Strauss'
s reactiona 'particular
colour'.33Thereweretwo 'sciences'availableto Lvi-Strauss
in hisattemptto deal
with the problemswhich confronted
Marxism
and
Both
him,
psychoanalysis.
412
SIMON CLARKE
providedthemeansofgivinghistorya new meaning,notbasedon thecontinuous

Marxismrestoresmeaningto historyby locatingthat
progressof consciousness.
beingone moment
meaningbeyondtheindividualin historyitself,theirrational
ofhistory,
of thecontradictory
, yetprogressive,
development
givenmeaningby the
in the developmenttowardsthe
theirrational
positivemomentwhichtranscends
finalgoal.Thiswasthedoctrineespousedby manyofLvi-Strauss's
contemporaries,
not
the
it
was
road
chosen
Paul
Nizan.
Lvi-Strauss.
However,
by
including
he
the
of
tells
us that'my
Marx,34
inspiration
acknowledging
Althoughfrequently
Marxistcatechismconsistsof two or threerules,but thatrendersme in no way
competentto givejudgementof Marx'swork'.35
but throughthe
restoresmeaningto man not throughhistory,
Psychoanalysis
thatthescientific
showedto Lvi-Strauss
methodof
unconscious.Psychoanalysis
an
order
into
be
to
the
could
also
individual,
introducing
apparent
geology
applied
thelatterto 'certainfundamental
ofthephysical
incoherence
byreferring
properties
or psychicaluniverse'.36
The lessonwas also learnedfromMarx that:
toanother;
isnever
ofonetype
ofreality
that
true
inthereduction
the
consists
reality
'understanding
isalready
ourdetection.
inthecareittakes
toavoid
itsnature
most
obvious
ofrealities,
andthat
apparent
istosay,
between
reason
andsense-perception;
Inallthese
therelation,
that
theproblem
isthesame:
cases
inwhich
thesame:a sort
ofsuper-rationalism
andthegoalwearelooking
forisalways
sense-perception
willbeintegrated
intoreasoning
andyetlosenoneofitsproperties'.17
Undoubtedlywe would have to referto personal,biographical,factorsto
explainthe implicitrejectionof Marxistphilosophyin favourof a philosophy
wouldhave
derivingfromFreud.Perhaps,hadhe remainedin France,Lvi-Strauss
theMarxistperspecand soughtto integrate
maintained
hispoliticalcommitment
tivewithhis own. However,he wentto Braziland whathe encountered
there
of historical
cannothave encourageda beliefin the inherentprogressiveness
of primitiveculturesmightultidevelopment.In Marxisttermsthe destruction
withthe
metand sympathized
but in BrazilLvi-Strauss
matelybe progressive,
a result
as
This
the
dialectic.
with
others
moment'
of
suifering
sympathy
'negative
as
ofthe'logicofhistory'becamemorepersonalwhenwarcameand Lvi-Strauss,
that
a Jew,foundhimself
victimofanother'logic'.38Henceitis notat all surprising
duringthe thirtiesLvi-Straussdevelopeda strongaversionto all historicism,
Ratherthan
whichhe has alwaysidentified
closelywithracismand oppression.39
andtheunityofmankind,
on hisprogressive
foundthemeaningofman'sexistence,
historical
Lvi-Strauss
self-realization,
soughtthismeaningin 'certainfundamental
of the. . . psychicaluniverse'.40
properties
not because of his insertionin a
Knowledge of man is possible,therefore,
of humannature.The latteris the
continuum,but becauseof the universality
ofobjectiveknowledgeofman,andso oftheby-passing
foundation
ofthepossibility
of philosophy,
thatknowledgebeingobjective'becausemy thoughtwas itselfan
object.Being"of thisworld",itpartookofthesamenatureas thatworld.'41Hence
S STRUCTURALISM
LEVI-STRAUSS*
413
it is by theobjectivemethodsof naturalsciencethatknowledgeof man is to be

attained.
which showed the way. It was psychoanalysis
Initiallyit was psychoanalysis
whichundermined
the'staticantinomies'
ofacademicphilosophy
by showingthat
'thereexistedbeyondtherationala categoryat once moreimportant
and more
is thehighestformoftherational.'42
valid:thatofthemeaningful.
The meaningful
of consciousness,
the meaningof
By seeking,beneaththe apparentirrationality
human activityin the unconscious,psychoanalysis
showed that all aspectsof
mentallife,'rational'and 'non-rational'alike, could be encompassedwithout
buildingwalls betweenknowledgeand experience.Hcnce the taskLvi-Strauss
was precisely
thatofhisphenomcnologist
to
soughtto accomplish
contemporaries,
the
a
and
the
sensible
and
in
integratemeaning
intelligible,
experience,
single
While phenomenologyaccomplishesthe synthesisin consciousness,
synthesis.
Lvi-Strauss
it in theunconscious.
accomplishes
The turnto anthropology
was firstsuggestedto Lvi-Strauss
by Paul Nizan,43
but it was thereadingof Lowie whichconfirmed
in his choice,44a
Lvi-Strauss
choicesealedby his appointment
to a postin Brazil.45Apartfromidiosyncratic
motivesbehindtheappealof anthropology,46
Lvi-Strauss
saw in it thepossibility
of a knowledgeof man. He was not concernedwithimmersing
himselfin the
a
of
a
individual
in
a
at
time,he
experience particular
society particular
particular
was concernedratherwiththe mostgeneralproperties
of man,thosewhichare
could revealto
expressedin everysocietyand whichhe believedanthropology
him.47He soughtthosecharacteristics
ratherthan
which'matterto all mankind',48
thosewhichconcernedonlyone society.It shouldnot,therefore,
be surprising
that
new philosophies
did not appeal,based as they
developedby his contemporaries
wereon an identification
of experienceand reality.49
While thephenomenologists
to the intentionality
of the subject,Lvi-Strauss
analysedmeaningby reference
soughtmeaningthrougha scientific
meaningis
analysisin whichtheexperienced
to be explainedby reference
to a morefundamental
meaning.50
In the restof thispaper I intendto indicatehow Lvi-Strauss'
s early'structuralism'represents
a developmentof thisphilosophyof man. The philosophy
seeksto foundthemeaningof man'sexistencein an atemporalunconscious,
and
henceseeksin thelatteralsoitsfundamental
The
explanation.
principleofscientific
has cleartheoretical
thesebeing,above all, an
therefore,
philosophy,
implications,
and to historicism.51
oppositionto atomism,to psychologism,
This philosophydependson the developmentof a satisfactory
theoryof the
forpsychoanalysis
itselfcould not providethetheory.The ultimate
unconscious,
relianceof psychoanalysis
on theaffective
was hardlysatisfactory
fora confirmed
rationalist
suchas Lvi-Strauss.
It was onlygradually,however,thatLvi-Strauss
forgeda theoryappropriateto his ambition.The firstsource,afterFreud,was
and
Gestalt
withitsfocuson function
and system,
ratherthaninstinct
psychology,
414
SIMON CLARKE
emotion.Later,in New York,Lvi-Strauss

would find,in thestructural
linguistics
theinspiration
ofRomanJakobson,
forhissolutionto theproblemoffoundingan
intellectualist
whichcouldintegrate
bothreasonand emotion.On the
psychology
basisofthissolutionhe developsfullyhisphilosophy
ofmanwhile,atthesametime,
thisphilosophical
alters
his
theoretical
as he comesto
development
preoccupations
focusincreasingly
on thesymbolicand on thesystemwhichgivesitmeaning.This
formalemphasisbringsLvi-Strauss'sthoughtinto contactwith
increasingly
anothercontemporaneous
thatof neo-positivist
formalism.52
development,
andDurkheimian
3. Lvi-Strauss
sociology
Lvi-Strauss
enteredanthropology
witha projectalreadydefined.He soughtto
the
nature
ofman.Unable,perhaps,to seetherationafind,through
anthropology,
man
of
his
in
he
own
turned
to thestudyofothersocieties.On arriving
lity
society,
in Brazil as an emissaryof Frenchculture,Lvi-Strauss
was forcedto confront
Durkheimiansociology.
WhenLvi-Strauss
first
wentto Brazilhe was an 'avowed anti-Durkheimian'.53
What he rejectedin Durkheimwas thelatterpositivism54
and his 'attemptto
55
to
uses'.
In
the
put sociology metaphysical
particular conceptof thecollective
which
made
man's
social
nature
conscience,
somethingoutsideman, disturbed
Lvi-Strauss.
Durkheimdevelopeda sociologyby tryingto sociologizehisinterpretation
of
Kant,makingof societynot a formalprinciple,nor an Idea, whichis ultimately
buta substantial
unknowable,
effects,
realitywhichhasphenomenal
experienced
by
theindividualas somethingexistingoutsidehimself,and constraining
him. The
andnota metaphysical,
studyofsocietycouldthusbecomean empirical,
discipline.
can be studiedempirically.
The
Societybecomessomething
tangible,whoseeffects
however,is thatDurkheimdoes littlemorethan
problemwithsuchan attempt,
namethisthingwhichissociety,
thecollectiveconscience.
The collectiveconscience
is something
whichis stable
psychic,and not somethingmaterial,it is something
and independentof the individualwill, somethingwhich is distinctfromthe
individualand whichstandsoverhim.
in part,froman interpretation
s idea of
of Kant,Durkheim'
Althoughderiving,
fromthatofKant.56Kantthoughtthatman'sactionsshould
societyisverydifferent
be ruledby thecategoricalimperative,
itselfdetermined
by purelyformalmeans,
but forKant thiscategoricalimperativederivedfrom'the generalconceptof a
rationalbeingas such',57notfromsociety,and was supposedto be universal,
not
confined
to anyonesociety.Moreoverthefoundation
oftheimperative
was a priori,
whilethecollectiveconsciencesupposedlyhas an empiricalfoundation.
For Kant
thelaw istheconditionforthefullrealization
oftheindividual,
whileforDurkheim
it is themeansof implementing
theobligationof theindividualto submitto the
demandsof society.In manyrespectsLvi-Strauss's
a Kantian
work represents
critiqueof Durkheimianism.
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
415
To Lvi-Straussin the 1930s the Durkheimianpositionmusthave seemed

forreasonswhichI havejust outlined.The onlyacceptable
morallyunacceptable,
fora liberalin Franceinthe1930smusthavebeentheindividual.
sourceofmorality
Mans socialnaturemustbe locatedin theindividual,and not in a constraining
forcewhich standsover the individual.58
Man mustbe the sourceof his own
same
this
At
the
time
the conditionof possibility
social
of
nature,
humanity.59
it
could
be
must
not
a
be
formal
knowable,
society,
empirically
simply
principle.
s sociologyby puttingthesocial
Hence Lvi-Strauss
soughtto remakeDurkheim'
natureofman,inadequately
conceptualized
bythelatteras thecollectiveconscience,
back intotheindividual.60
The natureof man as a socialbeingis to be revealed
whatitis aboutmanthatmakessocietypossible,thatmakes
throughinvestigating
in
their
createsocialrelationsin whichtheycommitthemselves
men,
interaction,
to livingin society.Lvi-Strauss
argues,in an articlepublishedin 1946,61 that
Durkheimwas forcedto inventthecollectiveconsciencebecausehe did nothave
availableto himan adequateconceptionoftheunconscious.62
It is thenatureofthe
unconscious
whichmakessocietypossible,and it is becausethesocialis locatedin
theunconscious
thatit seemsto experienceto be external.63
Durkheimrealizedthatsocialfactswereboth'things'and 'representations',
both
to the
subjectand object,64thattheywere psychic,but thattheywere resistant
individualwill.Withouthavingavailabletheconceptoftheunconscious,
whichis
a psychicentityimpervious
to thewill,Durkheimhad to inventa 'mind'
precisely
whichexistedoutsidethe individualand ruledhim.65With the conceptof the
however,we can recognizethatthemeaningof thesocialfactis not
unconscious,
thatitis thecreationoftheindividual,
withoutbeinga
imposedon theindividual,
is foundedin theunconscious:
purelysubjectivemeaning,sinceitsobjectivity
'Thesolution
ofDurkheim's
liesintheawareness
that
these
ofideasare
antinomy
objectivated
systems
orthat
unconscious
structures
underlie
them
andmake
them
Hence
their
unconscious,
psychical
possible.
- I meanun-mechanical
- character
character
of"things";
andatthesametimethedialectic
oftheir
explanation'.68
The relationto theother,thesocialrelation,is a symbolicrelation,and hence
mustbe givenan explanationin termsof thepsyche.67
Thus Lvi-Strauss
rejects
reductionist
attemptsto disposeof the problemof the collectiveconscienceby
devaluingthesymbolicnatureof thesocialfact,suchas Malinowski'sattemptto
inserta behaviourist
'No socialphenopsychologyintoDurkheim'ssociology.68
menonmay be explained,and the existenceof cultureitselfis unintelligible,
if
of sociologicalthought.'69
At
symbolismis not set up as an a priorirequirement
itseems,itwas Freudwho showedtheroleoftheunconscious
in constituting
first,
symbolicrelationsbetweenthe selfand the other.However,for a rationalist
Freud'suseoftheirrational
couldhardlyprovesatisfactory.
Hence,itwas notuntil
hisdiscovery
of Gestalt
thatLvi-Strauss
psychologyand thenstructural
linguistics
was able to develop a satisfactory
of
the
unconscious
to underpinhis
theory
sociology.
4I6
SIMON CLARKE
Lvi-Strauss's
objectionto Durkheimian
sociologywas clearlyan objectionfrom
It is to thesolutionsoffered
withintheDurkheimian
tradition.
thathe objects,not
to theproblemswhichDurkheimposed forsociology.While Durkheimsought
thenatureofsociety,Lvi-Strauss
soughtthenatureofmanandofhisunconscious.
Forbothsocietyis symbolic,forbothitis to be studiedas a systematic
whole,and
forboththemethodto be followedis thecomparative
method.70
followsDurkheimin emphasizing
theneedfora systemAlthoughLvi-Strauss
atic view of society,he rejectsDurkheim'sclaimthatthissystemis an emergent
theindividualmembersof
whole whichhas its own laws and whichtranscends
Lvi-Strauss
cannot
other
in theindividualmembers
For
exist
than
society.
society
of societyand in the relationsbetweentheseindividuals,theserelationsbeing
foundedin theunconsciousand not in some transcendent
It is thisinsisentity.71
tencethatleadsLvi-Strauss
towardsstructuralism.
Lvi-Strausswas seekingthe most generalpropertiesof societyin orderto
uncovertheoriginofthesocialin manhimself.
At thesametimehe was seekingto
rootthisgeneralconceptionin theconcrete,
in themindoftheindividualmember
of thisor thatsociety.72
He believedhe saw sucha conception,
at leastin embryo,
in theworkof Mauss,whom Lvi-Strauss
in
his
acknowledged
earlyworkas his
'master'.73
Mauss'sinsistence
on thesystematic
natureof socialphenomenais expressedin
theconceptof the'totalsocialfact'.74
'He studieseach typeas a whole,alwaysconsidering
it as an integrative
cultural
complex'.75But Mauss tieshimselfmuchmorecloselyto theconcretethandoes
Durkheim.The conceptof the'totalsocialfact'leadstowardsa greaterrespectfor
theintegrity
and specificity
of each particular
society,and so a lesserreadinessto
resortto thereductionism
of theevolutionary
argumentto whichDurkheimso
of theconceptof a collecMoreover,despitehis retention
readilyhad recourse.76
tivepsyche,Maussis muchmoreawarethanwas Durkheimof theneed to relate
thisto theindividualpsychology.77
It is on thebasisofa criticalreadingofMauss's
thatLvi-Strauss
theoryof reciprocity
developedhistheoryof thesocial,and it is
to thedevelopment
of thistheorythatI would now liketo turn.
4. Thetheory
ofreciprocity
The theoryofreciprocity
was developedina numberoftheoretical
articles
which
Lvi-Strauss
in 1943and 1944,whichwerebasedlargelyon thosesocieties
published
he had visitedin Brazil.78
One problemwhichclearlycropsup in thesearticles,
andindeedinLvi-Strauss's
laterworkas well,istheproblemofdiffusion.79
The problemwas oneofexplaining
betweeninstitutions
foundin societiesas far
apparentlyremarkablesimilarities
was opposedto
apartas Northand SouthAmerica,Asiaand Oceania.Lvi-Strauss
all kinds of evolutionaryargument,unlesstherewas very good independent
evidencefor thesearguments.
Explanationin termsof 'anteriorforms'is only
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
417
In thecase of
explanationhas failed.80
acceptableas a lastresort,whenfunctional
theBororo,theirdualisticsocial
one ofthesocietieswhichconcernedLvi-Strauss,
could not be explainedin evolutionary
terms,as a primitiveform,
organization
becausetherewas clearevidencethatthisorganization
derivedfroma morecomculture.81
plex
Lvi-Strauss
was notas strongly
whichhe saw as being
opposedto diffusionism,
to
functional
However
he
explanation.82
complementary
arguedthat,evenwhere
therewas evidenceto supportdiffusionist
these
wereinsufficient.
The
hypotheses,
is
the
an
a
of
institution
different
from
that
question
principleunderlying
question
of its origins,as Durkheimhimselfhad clearlyargued.83Where we find an
institution
whichis general,we mustexplainthatgenerality
to the
by reference
This
of
its
function.
will
be
function
revealed
of
generality
by analysis the
fundamental
the
institution.84
of
principles
The commonprinciplewhichwas emergingfromtheanalysisof a numberof
was theprincipleof reciprocity.
institutions
In thearticles
apparently
verydifferent
of 1943to 1945Lvi-Strauss
findsreciprocity
to be thefoundation
of power,85of
dual organization,86
of war and commerce,87
and of kinship.88
MarcelMausshad alreadyput forwarda theoryof reciprocity
in hisessayThe
For
Lvi-Strauss
it
is
this
which
a
era
forthesocial
Gift*9
essay
'inaugurates new
sciences'.90
Maussfound,beneaththemanydifferent
formsof thegiftrelationship,
a commonfactor.91
is somethingotherthantheimmediate
The giftrelationship
the
of
for
giving
gift, one objectcan be replacedby anotherwithouttherelationThe giftrelationship
is also morethanthesimplesumof its
shipbeingaffected.92
an obligationto reciprocate.
Mausssaw the
parts,forthegivingof a giftinstitutes
in thisobligationto reciprocate,
and soughtto explainthis
keyto therelationship
obligation.93
Maussobservedthatthegiftwas imbuedwithsymbolicsignificance.
He noted
thatthe real properties
of the giftwere unimportant,
all sortsof quite different
itemscouldconstitute
gifts.He concludedthatthegiftwas verymuchmorethana
It was a totalsocialfactwhichinstituted
a socialrelation
simpleobjecttransferred.
betweenindividualsor groupsand had religious,legal, moral,economic and
aesthetic
It was,furthermore,
a bindingsocialrelationwhichhad the
significance.
natureof a contractby virtueof theobligationto reciprocate
on thepartof the
Thus Mausssaw in therelationof giftexchangetheoriginof thesocial
recipient.
contractand so the foundationof the relationbetweenindividualand society.
fortheinstitution,
as Lvi-Strauss
was to
Thoughhe madeno claimto universality
too:
do, Mauss'sconclusioncould be thatof Lvi-Strauss
'Itisbyopposing
reason
toemotion
. . . that
insubstituting
succeed
andcommerce
alliance,
people
gift
forwar,isolation
andstagnation
. . . Societies
haveprogressed
inthemeasure
inwhich
havebeen
they
abletostabilise
their
contracts
togive,
receive
andrepay.'94
Maussmadea seriouserror,whichhas itsoriginin
Accordingto Lvi-Strauss,95
4I8
SIMON CLARKE
his characteristic
empiricism.Lvi-Straussargues that Mauss isolatesthe giftgivingrelationfromthe systemin whichit is inserted.Mauss believedthatthe
a systemof reciprocity,
ratherthanseeingit as being
givingof a giftinstituted
inserted
in sucha system.96
He could not see, beyondtheconcreterealityof the
relation,the systemwhichlay behind.This leads him to see the obligationto
as beingsomething
in thegift,failingto see thattheidea of
inherent
reciprocate
the
initial
of
the
an
tosecure
exchangeprecedes
gift.The giftis giveninorder
giving
is
not
the
result
the
of
thwarted
to
,
exchangeexchange
attempt give.
Thus Maussexplainedexchangein ultimately
irrational
terms,thegivingof the
a
tension
which
could
be
inan exchange.
resolved
giftsetting
up psychological
only
This theorywas unacceptableto Lvi-Strauss,
as
he
a
was
seeking
'super-rationalism'.97Lvi-Strauss's
own theory,
however,was stillin thecourseof development.
Lvi-Strauss
convincedof thecentrality
of theinstitution
of
was, nevertheless,
His
theoretical
was
endorsed
his
own
reciprocity.
appreciation
by
experience.
While livingwith the Nambikwarahe experiencedan encounterbetweentwo
bands.The meetingwas accompaniedby an elaborateritualof exchangewhich
lastedfora numberofdaysandwhichservedto reconciletheinitially
hostilebands
to one another.These exchangeswere not purelysymbolic,for,as Lvi-Strauss
tellsus in some detail,98
the bandsdependon thissortof contactforimportant
This
is
described
in TristesTropiques and referred
to in many
goods.
meeting
otherworks.100
This incidentprovidedthe materialfor one of Lvi-Strauss's
firsttheoretical
articles.101
In thisarticleLvi-Strauss
that
is
an
there
essential
continuity
argued
betweenwar and trade,whicharenot 'two typesofcoexisting
relation,butrather
two opposedand indissoluble
The
aspectsof one and thesamesocialprocess'.102
which
meet
both
fear
and needone another.When theymeetan elaborate
groups
ritualis necessary,
in orderto dissipatethefearsand
involvingsymbolicconflict,
make tradepossible.This trademay even go so faras an exchangeof women
betweenthegroups,so thatthe two groupscome to be permanently
relatedby
concludesthearticlein thoroughly
Maussianterms:War,
marriage.Lvi-Strauss
mustthusbe studiedin
commerce,thesystemof kinship,and thesocialstructure
intimatecorrelation.103
In anotherarticleLvi-Strauss
underlies
dualorganization
arguedthatreciprocity
evenwheretherearerelations
:
ofsubordination,
isreciprocal
itself
for'subordination
the prioritywhichis gainedby one moietyat one level is lost to the opposite
moietyon theother'.104
This idea was developedas the basis of an exchangetheoryof power, first
in Nambikwara
publishedin 1944105in the formof an analysisof chieftainship
in 1947106
in otherprimitive
societies.When reprinted
society,and,by extension,
it appearedas a generaltheoryofpower,withtheterm'chieftainship'
replacedby
theterm'power'throughout.
in Tristes
Much ofthisarticlereappears
Tropiques.107
thereis no doubtthateven in
Althoughfocussedon Nambikwarachieftainship,
S STRUCTURALISM
LEVI-STRAUSS'
419
forthesameidea ofa
was meantto be thebasisofa generaltheory,
1944theanalysis
betweenleaderand led, or 'mass'and 'elite'is foundin an
relationof reciprocity
UnitedStates,writtenin 1944.108
articleon thecontemporary
a functionalist
The theoryof power is, essentially,
theory.However, LviStraussobjectsto thatsortof functional
analysiswhichimposesa functionon an
insteadof discoveringthatfunctionwithinit. The functioncan 'be
institution
reachedonly throughanalysisof theunderlying
principleof the institution'.109
The reasonforlookingatpowerinNambikwarasocietyisthat'precisely
on account
ofitsextreme
Nambikwara
structure
bare
somebasic
lays
political
impoverishment,
whichmay remainhiddenin more complexand elaboratesystemsof
functions
is always
This,ofcourse,is to takeitforgrantedthatthe'function
government.'110
and everywhere
thesame,and can be betterstudied,and morefullyunderstood
whereit existsundera simpleform'.111
This identity
is foundedin the
of function
the
human
of
mind.
identity
The groupneedsa leaderto organizetheirtravels,to decideon expeditions,
to
deal withneighbouring
the
to
But
the
leader
does
not
bands, supervize gardens.
emergeas a directresponseto thisneedof thegroup,theleaderis notmouldedby
thegroup.The group,rather,
is mouldedby theleaderandtakesitscharacter
from
him.Iftheleaderis inadequatethegroupwill disperseand findnew leaders.There
is no collectiveconscienceto mouldtheindividual.
need fora leader,thisneed does not makeitself
Althoughthereis a functional
feltdirectly.
Chiefsdo notarisebecausetheyareneeded,theyarise'becausethere
foritsown sake,feela strong
are,in anyhumangroup,menwho . . . enjoyprestige
to
and
to
the
burden
whom
of
appeal responsibility,
publicaffairs
bringsitsown
reward.These individualdifferences
are . . . part of thosepsychologicalraw
materialsout of whichanygivencultureis made'.112Thereis a function,
but the
fulfilment
of thisfunction
mustbe explainedin termsofindividual,
notcollective,
withDurkheimseemsclearand deliberate.
psychology.The contrast
The relationofpoweris a relationof reciprocity.
In exchangefortheburdenof
hisoffice
theNambikwarachiefis providedby thegroupwitha numberof wives.
But on top
rewardforhisheavyduties.'113
Polygamyis 'themoralandsentimental
of thisrealexchangeof valuables,thereis a symbolicexchange:
'Consent
... isatthesame
time
theorigin
andthelimit
isthepsychological
ofleadership
. . . Consent
basisofleadership,
butindaily
lifeitexpresses
itself
in,andismeasured
by,a gameofgive-and-take
andhisfollowers,
ofleadership,
thenotion
andwhich
asa basic
attribute
forth,
played
bythechief
brings
ofreciprocity.'114
In theseearlyarticleswe can see a theorydeveloping.Lvi-Strauss
is notturning
his back on functionalanalysisof a Durkheimiankind. Trade, co-operation,
areall requiredifsocietyis to be able to satisfy
thematerialneedsof its
leadership
members.These societalfunctions
are all fulfilled
modalitiesof the
by different
thefundamental
so far
socialrelation,of reciprocity.
But theargument
institution,
420
SIMON CLARKE
thefunctional
is incomplete.For Lvi-Strauss
argumentcannotstandon itsown.
Societyexistsnot, as Durkheimmighthave argued,becauseit createsits own
conditionsof existence,but because theseare part of the 'psychologicalraw
If we areto understand
out of whichanygivencultureis made.'115
materials
how
thesocietalfunctions
are fulfilled,
we mustintroducean explanationin termsof
efficient
causes,an explanationin psychologicalterms.Hence the functional
must
be rooted in the individualpsychology.Societyneed not have
analysis
existed.It doesexistbecausethehumanmindis suchas to makeitpossibleforitto
exist.Hence,forexample,a leaderis requiredifthegroupis to survive.However,
leadershipdoes not existbecausethegroupcreatesit,but becausethereare particular kinds of people who are psychologically
well-adaptedto performthe
function.
leadership
needsofthesociety,the
Althoughthestarting
pointoftheanalysisis thematerial
the
form
a
not
take
of
utilitarian
which
does
forthe
contract,
emerges
reciprocity
a
the
relation
roots
of
dimension.
Hence
the
symbolic
psychological
give
reciprocity
isa totalsocialfact,encompassing
relationofreciprocity
bothmaterial
andsymbolic
betweenthemembersof society,and rooted,in thelastanalysis,
interdependence
in theunconsciousmind.
Takenindividually
as expressions
theseearlyarticlestreatofdifferent
institutions
of a commonprinciple,theprincipleof reciprocity.
When we take the articles
as one
doesnot see reciprocity
however,it seemsclearthatLvi-Strauss
together,
but
rather
as
the
to
as
its
exiscondition
of
principleamongothers,
key society,
tence.It is therelationof reciprocity
whichintegrates
theindividualintosociety,
which makes man a social animal.116
In seekingthe psychologicaloriginsof
is seekingthoseproperties
of
Lvi-Strauss
of the
particular
expressions reciprocity
mindwhichmakesocietypossibleand whichdefinemanas a socialbeing.It is the
natureof the mindwhichlies at the root of reciprocity,
and not an obligation
of reciprocity,
whicharethe
imposedfromwithout.The conditionsof possibility
conditionsof existenceof societyitself,taketheformof psychological
a prioris.
These psychologicalpropertiescannot,therefore,
be explainedgenetically,as
Durkheimsoughtto explain them,as emergentpropertieswhich belong to
fortheyare thestarting
society,117
pointfromwhichsociologymustbegin.
This theory,outlinedin theearlyarticles,is morefullydevelopedin TheEleStructures
is basedon a conceptionof
Structures
ofKinship.TheElementary
mentary
as a relational,or structural,
reciprocity
principle,whichis priorto any instituofreciprocity
tionalization
andpriorto theelementswhicharerelatedby reciprotheimmanence
ofrelation
, foritis fromthebeginning
city.Reciprocity
exemplifies
a relationalprinciple.This relationis priorto theconcretematerialon whichit is
imposedand so itsimmanenceis foundedin themindwhichimposesit.Thus the
makes it possibleto explainthe social
notion of reciprocity,
for Lvi-Strauss,
not to a collective
relation,and moregenerallythesocialstructure,
by reference,
but to theindividualunconscious.
conscience,
S STRUCTURALISM
LEVI-STRAUSS*
421
Structures
5. TheElementary
ofKinship
thefulldevelopment
ofthetheory
Structures
TheElementary
ofKinshiprepresents
whichwe have alreadyseenin embryoin theearlierarticles.Reciof reciprocity
procitymarksthedividinglinebetweencultureandnature,henceitis thedefining
of thelatter.Once again we
of cultureand conditionof possibility
characteristic
find,in thefirstfewchaptersof thebook, thatthereare materialgroundsforthe
is the conditionof possibility
of societyin its functionof
claimthatreciprocity
that
thisfunctionis fulfilled
the
fact
resources.118
scarce
However,
distributing
to a collectiveconscience.Insteadit mustbe
cannotbe explainedby reference
to the natureof the mindwhichalone can constitute
a
explainedby reference
The sourceof reciprocity
an innatepsychorelationof reciprocity.
is, therefore,
productof a biologicalchangein themindat themomentof
logicalmechanism,
theemergenceof culture.119
hadappliedthetheoryofreciprocity
In hisearlyarticles
Lvi-Strauss
to a number
of institutions,
but none of theseanalysescould establishthe universality
of
The
for
the
to
the
of
analysis kinship,'a
reciprocity. inspiration applying theory
in
the
whole
network
of
and
which
rights
language
obligationsis expressed',120
derivesfromtheworkoftheDurkheimian
Marcel
Granet.121
Granethad
Sinologist
a
demonstrate
certain
the
to
about
evolution
of
the
Chinese
sought
hypothesis
Granes
was
While
and
his
deficient,
analysis
kinshipsystem.
evolutionary
122he nevertheless,
was basedon Tacileconjectures',
hypothesis
accordingto Lvimadea 'decisivecontribution
to thegeneraltheoryof kinshipsystems.'123
Strauss,
Granesworkwas ofparamount
theoretical
forLvi-Strauss
because
importance
Granetsoughtto analysesystems
ofkinshipandmarriage
as systems
ofexchangeof
womenbetweensocialgroups.124
Accordingto Granetthesegroupsare basedon
land ownership.125
The relationships
betweenthe groupsare constituted
on the
basisofa system
ofclassification
whichhasbothan objectiveanda subjective
form.
The objectiveformis represented
of thesegroupsintoclasses.
by an organization
The subjective
formisrepresented
ofkin,thetwoclassifications
bytheclassification
Theseclassesare relatedto one anotherby alliancessealedby
beingequivalent.126
ofwhichmarriage
isoneaspect.The regulation
ofmarriage
issecondary
reciprocity,
withrespectto thefundamental
theregulation
questionof socialorganization,127
beingarrangedin sucha way thattherelationsbetweenclasses,at the objective
at thesubjectivelevel,will be maintained.128
Thiswill contrilevel,or categories,
butegreatlyto themaintenance
of a good orderin bothmentaland sociallife.129
Hence thesystems
of kinshipand marriage,forGranet,represent
systemswhich
betweensocialgroupsby prescribing
certainformsof marriregulatetherelations
of thesocialorder.130
Granetanalysesthese
age whichwill maintainthestability
as ideologicalsystems,
thatit is thesocialorderwhichis fundasystems
insisting
mental,class exogamy,for example,being underlainby the exogamyof the
Hence Granessociologicalargumentoffers
no place foran
landowningunit.131
intellectualist
of kinshipand marriagewithwhichhe is
explanationof thesystems
422
SIMON CLARKE
'to transposea certainarrangement

concerned.It is illegitimate
of societyinto a
logicalsystem'132
In puttingforward
hisevolutionary
schemeGranetoutlinesa numberofdifferent
of
and
which
he arranges
in evolutionary
systems kinship marriage,
sequence,and
whichhe compareswithAustralian
class
These
different
systems.
systems
marriage
of
are, in embryo,those which Lvi-Straussreducesto elementarystructures
as
the
latter
Hence
Granes
kinship,
analysis,empirically
acknowledges.133.
inadequateas it may have been,nevertheless
opened the way forLvi-Strauss's
analysisof systemsof kinshipand marriagein termsof exchange.In developing
hisown analysisLvi-Strauss
retained
rejectedaspectsof Granes,butnevertheless
the principalideas,and inherited
some of the misunderstandings,
whichcharacterizedGraneswork.Lvi-Strauss
and his sociorejectedGranesevolutionism
Lvi-Strauss
to
understand
not
as
logism.
sought
marriage
simply an aspectof
relationsof politicalalliancebetweencorporategroups,but as the fundamental
socialrelationconstituted
by themind.Thisled himto rejectthesocialfoundation
of thekinshipsystemoffered
by Granet,arguingthatmarriageby exchangeneed
notbe institutionalized
in a marriageclasssystem,
butcan be regulatedin relationterms
alone.
this
of
social
thesystemcan thenbe exfoundation,
ship
Deprived
reference
to
the
mind.
plainedby
TheElementary
Structures
ofKinshipthusdevelopsoutofLvi-Strauss's
critiqueof
The critiqueconsistsin the reinterpretation
Durkheimianism.
of the Maussian
in thelightofpsychoanalysis
and
and of Gestaltpsychology,
theoryof reciprocity
in the reinterpretation
of Granestheoryin the lightof the revisedtheoryof
The theoretical
of The Elementary
foundationof the 'structuralism'
reciprocity.
Structures
isgestaltist,
thestructures
derivefromtheformalization
ofthe
themselves
analysisof theorthodoxDurkheimianMarcelGranet.
The significance
a
ofstructural
was notthatitoffered
forLvi-Strauss
linguistics
whichLvi-Strauss
had alreadydeveloped,butthatit offered
conceptof structure,
on theone handa legitimation
ofthepathhe had taken,andon theothera solution
to themajorproblemwhichhistheorystillfaced,thatof developingan adequate
psychologicaltheory.In his 1945 articlethe linguisticanalogy is essentially
theanaIn theconcludingsectionof TheElementary
Structures
methodological.134
logy is based on the commonfunctionof communication
supposedlysharedby
of'psychology
In an articleof 1946thecontribution
kinshipand lingustic
systems.
andlinguistics'
is relatedto theneedto setup symbolism
'as an a priori
requirement
ofsociologicalthought.'125
was clearlylinkedto a
By 1949this'symbolicfunction'
purelyformalconceptof theunconscious:
'theunconscious
tothe
outaccording
... isreducible
iscarried
to. . . thesymbolic
. . . which
function
ofa
same
lawsamong
allmen,
andactually
ofthese
laws... Astheorgan
totheaggregate
corresponds
which
theunconscious
elements
lawsuponinarticulated
structural
function,
specific
merely
imposes
theunconelsewhere
. . . these
where
lawsarethesame
forallindividuals
andinallinstances
originate
scious
itsactivities.'13*
pursues
S STRUCTURALISM
LEVI-STRAUSS*
423
In the 1950 Introductionto Mauss's Sociologieet Anthropologie

Lvi-Strauss
of the unconsciousinto a systematic
interpretation
integratesthis formalistic
critiqueof Mauss'stheoryof exchange,in whichit replacesthe earlierpsychoof thecritique.The lessonof linguistics
foundation
is again
analyticand Gestaltist
the
not methodological,
but substantive,
unconscious
character
of the
showing
an
of
mental
life'
and
'fundamental
intellectualist
makingpossible
phenomena
the'generalized
of thelaws of humanthought/137
expression
psychology,
Finally,
inan articleof 1951 inspired
derivesexchangefrom
bySapir,Lvi-Strauss
explicitly
That 'splitrepresentation'
thisnew conceptof theunconscious.
whichis theorigin
of thesymboliccapacity,is also thesourceof exchange:
ashaving
valuebothforthespeaker
andthelistener,
'Since
certain
aresimultaneously
terms
perceived
isintheexchange
ofcomplementary
towhich
theonly
this
contradiction
allsocial
values,
waytoresolve
isreduced.'138
existence
s anthropology
The assimilation
to Lvi-Strauss'
thusconfirms
of lingustics
my
structuralism
that
does
not
derive
from
the
Lvi-Strauss's
argument
applicationofa
successful
methodofanalysisto a new field.Ratheritderivesfromthe
scientifically
a
new
to
socialphilosophyon thebasisof a psychologistic,
and
attempt develop
Durkheimianism.
an
of
The
of
subsequently intellectualist,
critique
significance
in
Its
is
this
is
to
the
not
methodological. significance provide
linguistics
attempt
forthedevelopment
ofa theoryoftheunconscious
whichmadepossible
inspiration
on
thetransition
to
the
one
frompsychologism intellectualism,
hand,and to legi139
the
timatethescientific
of
this
social
on
other.
claims
philosophy,
Notes
i. SA,p. 279.
2. 1968b,
p. 10;c.f.Auzias,1967,p. 14.
3. 1967b,
p. 32.
4. 1966a,pp.52-3.c.f.1970e,
p. 172;HN, p. 570;SA,p. 337.
refuses
toopposetheconcrete
totheabstract,
and
structuralism
toformalism,
5. 'Incontrast
Theform
isdefined
inopposition
toa matter
which
toaccord
a privileged
valuetothelatter.
hasno distinct
it is thecontent
remains
to it; butthestructure
content;
itself,
foreign
conceived
as a property
ofthereal.'(i96of,p. 3).
ina logicalorganisation
apprehended
6. SA,p. 280.
oformalism
andempiricism.
This
andde Ipola(1976)seethisas a combination
7. Castells
ofmanyvariants
ofpositivism.
characteristic
combination
is,however,
8. 1966e,
p. 36.
9. 1966b,
p. II.
10. Thequestion
between
Lvi-Strauss's
andhisphilosophy
oftherelationship
epistemology
it hasbecomefashionable
one.Recently
to seeepistemological
ofmanis an important
of structuralism,
ThusViet(1965),in hisdiscussion
distinas beingprimary.
questions
totheir
and
differences.
Castells
ofstructuralism
varieties
according
epistemological
guishes
as a combination
structuralism
offormalism
deIpola(1976),asnotedabove,characterize
withsuchanapproach.
andempiricism.
Thereseemtometobetwofundamental
problems
between
an explicitly
andthe
todistinguish
itisessential
espoused
epistemology,
Firstly,
424
SIMON CLARKE
in theworkin question.
Lvi-Strauss
a positivist
methodology
implicit
espouses
epistewithstrong
whenquestions
resonances,
mology,
although
phcnomenological
particularly
ofproof
arise(cf.IM,p.xx; iL,p. 16; 1962c!,
handhis
p. 241; 1966c!,
p. 53).On theother
isverydifferent,
nottosaydivinatory,
withthestatus
scholastic,
practice
beingessentially
oftheknowledge
itisdifficult
tosee
produced
(c.f.RC,p. 13).Secondly,
beinguncertain
howa theory
oftheknowledge
oftheobjectcanimply
oftheobject,
a particular
theory
whereas
theinverse
is almostunavoidable,
andin Lvi-Strauss's
caseit is
implication
itself
atallonthebasisofa prior
transparent.
Epistemology
onlymakes
anysense
separation
ofsubject
andobject.
ThusHegel'srefusal
tomakesucha separation
takeshimbeyond
(or
FormanyMarxists
considerations.
thesameistrueofMarx.The
beneath)
epistemological
ofrecovering
theunity
ofsubject
andobjectbecomes
a practical
anda scientific
problem
rather
thananepistemological
one.Epistemology
exists
not,asAlthusser
problem
appears
tobelieve
because
itseeks
oftheunity
ofsubject
andobject,
but
(1970,
pp.52-60),
guarantees
because
itseesthelackofsuchunity
asa philosophical
inthefirst
problem
place.Althusser
seemsto abandon
theguarantee,
butnottheproblem,
andso to relapse
intorelativism.
Forthese
reasons
I prefer
tofollowSve(1967,p. 67)inassigning
tothestrucpriority
turalist
overthestructuralist
as deriving
method,
philosophy
seeingtheepistemology
from
ofan 'objectivist'
theadoption
ofman.
directly
philosophy
Notes
topage408
a. ESK,p. 493.
b. 1956b,
communication
Professor
Lvi-Strauss
haskindly
confirmed
p. 585.In a personal
thatheworked
on TheElementary
Structures
in
from
itscompletion
1943until
continuously
tenchapters
a mixture
ofmyprior
early1947,sothatitsfirst
maywell'reflect
unsystematic
trends
ofthought
andofthesubsequent
ones.'
c. 1945c.Thisarticle
hasbeendevastatingly
criticized
byMounin,
1970,pp.199-214.
d. SA,pp.36-7.
e. FS,p. 536.
f. c.f.Guillaume
1969,p. 81).
(Parain-Vial,
1929.
g. Khler,
h. ESK,p. 100;KofFka,
1931,p. 644.
j. Asch,1968,p. 170.
k. ESK,pp.89-90,93-4.
1. ESK,p. 411.
m. ESK,p. 100.
n. ESK,p. xxvi.
p. 1962e,
p. 143.
q. SA,pp.324-5.
r. Piaget,1971,p. 55.
Ii. Sucha presumption
is not,in thiscase,unjustified.
the
Lvi-Strauss
acknowledges
decisive
of'personal
character
andone'sattitude
indetermining
toSociety'
particularities
theorientation
ofone'sthought
intelthat'muchofthese
(TT,p. 58);heacknowledges
lectual
I shared
withother
menofmygeneration'
processes
(TT,p. 59);that'itisdifficult
formetodisengage
from
theideological
milieu
inwhichI waseducated'
myself
entirely
wasto understand
notothersocieties,
buthisown
(1972b,p. 79).His earlyambition
in
atthattimeledhimsofarastostand
asa candidate
(1973a,
p. 35),andhiscommitment
thecantonal
elections
in 1932or 1933(1973a,pp. 35-6).His politics
wereoftheLeft
hismorerecently
aversion
tohisownage(1967b,
(1973a,
p. 35).Hence,despite
expressed
asa 'misanthrope'
forwhom'there
I dreadmorethan
isnothing
p. 31)andself-assessment
a too-close
withmyfellowmen'(1972b,
relationship
p. 82),we canbe surethatLvi-
LVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
425
of
his
bore
the
mark
and
so
it
is
intellectual
Strauss's
society,
early
development
perhaps
concerns
on thebasisofinterpolation
intellectual
toLvi-Strauss
toattribute
legitimate
andfrom
ofhisgeneration.
from
hisownworks
theculture
to theDurkheimian
at thismoment
nearer
thananyofmycolleagues
12. 'I amprobably
tradition.'
(TT,p. 63).
13.TT, pp.62-3.
14. 1973a,
p. 35.
readLowie'sPrimitive
camein 1933or 1934,whenLvi-Strauss
15.The'revelation*
Society
didnotreadLowieuntil
thatLvi-Strauss
(TT,p. 63).Leach(1970,pp.10-11)suggests
Lvi-Strauss
French
waspublished.
wasby1935a
edition
However,
!935>whenthefirst
inBrazil.
sociologist
ofwhoseopposition
to evolutionism,
debtwasowedto Lowiehimself,
16.Thegreatest
of
of diffusion,
in questions
we canfindmany
whoserelativism,
andof whoseinterest
echoesintheworkofLvi-Strauss
acknow(see(SA,pp.307-10)fora moretechnical
It was alsoto Lowie,amongothers,
thatLvi-Strauss
owedhisphysical
ledgment).
survival
inflight
from
France
(TT,p. 24).
Occupied
forthenatives
assiduous
their
whomthey
studied,
heldwork,
17. ... aboveallintheir
feeling
'
andtheir
ofthe"primitive"
(1973a,p. 35).
graspoftheexperience
between
18. (TT,pp.63-4)Simone
deBeauvoir
therelation
theFrench
and
fully
appreciated
work:'Heirto theFrench
to Lvi-Strauss's
but
tradition,
Anglo-Saxon
backgrounds
withAmerican
wished
totakeupagaintheattempt
Lvi-Strauss
ofhis
methods,
starting
masters
whileguarding
theirfailings.'
1949,p. 943);c.f.Kuper
(de Beauvoir,
against
(1970,p. 769).
19.TT, p. 55.
20. Morot-Sir,
1971,p. 14.
21. Sartre,
1965,pp.113-174.
of academic
22. Lvi-Strauss,
s criticism
in Tristes
1967b,p. 30. Lvi-Strauss
philosophy
thelatter
is
Six)isveryclosetothatofNizan(Nizan,1932)although
Tropiques
(Chapter
muchmorepolemical
andpolitical
thantheformer.
Nizanprovides
a linkbetween
Lvi-Strauss
andtheearlier
of'radicals'
1972,Chapter
(Redfern,
One).
generation
TT. p. 54.
23. Sartre,
1965,p. 229;c.f.Lvi-Strauss,
24. Morot-Sir,
1971,p. 15.
25. Morot-Sir,
1971,p. 14.
26. TT, pp.54-7,passim.
27. TT, p. 55.
28. TT, pp.54,56.
29. TT, pp.54,59.
'mission
is strong
to takeover
30. Thephilosopher's
(heholdsitonlyuntilscience
enough
from
istounderstand
andnotinrelation
toitself,
tooneself.
philosophy)
Beinginrelation
andexistentialism
didnotabolish
: theymerely
introduced
Phenomenology
metaphysics
newwaysoffinding
alibisformetaphysics.'
(TT,p. 62).
31. Sartre,
i960,pp.22-5.
I cametosociology
andethnolandlikemanyinFrance
32. 'I wasbrought
upa philosopher,
I hadinmindto answer
ogyfrom
(1966e,
philosophy.
philosophical
questions.'
p. 33).
33. TT, p. 59.
34. e.g.TT, p. 61.
thatLvi-Strauss
haseverstudied
MarxorHegel
either
35. 1971b,
p. 95.Thereisnoevidence
Nordoesit seemto methatthereis anyevidence
ofsignificant
Marxian
or
seriously.
theoretical
In general
Lvi-Strauss's
references
to MarxandEngels
Hegelian
inspiration.
areconfined
to attempts
Marxist
credentials
whichfrequently
misto establish
require
426
SIMON CLARKE
outofcontext
(cf.5a,p. 23; 1967a,pp. 519-20(ESK,p. 451,senselostin
quotation
translation);
1963c,
p. 9; HN, p. 479).
36. TT, pp.60-61.
37. TT, p. 61.
abouttheproblem
of'relatellsusthathe 'first
38. Lvi-Strauss
seriously'
beganto worry
tivism'
onhiswaytotheU.S.A.in 1940(TT,p. 382).
39. 1952a.
40. TT, pp.60-61.
41. TT, p. 59.
42. TT, p. 59.
43. 1967b,
p. 30.
44. 1 1, p. 63.
wassponsored
45. Hisappointment
byBougie(TT,p. 49).
to Lvi-Strauss
46. Itsabstraction
(TT, p. 58),an appealwhichmust
particularly
appealed
hisown
havebeenenhanced
hisprolonged
from
whencircumstances
enforced
absence
absolutism*
which
hehasrecalled,
thewar.It alsoappealed,
to a 'certain
society
during
inhisyouth(1967b,
characterized
histhought
p. 30).
andattheother
the
oftheworld,
. . . rejoins
atoneextreme
thehistory
47. 'Anthropology
ofoneandtheother
atthesame
ofmyself,
anditunveils
theshared
motivation
history
allmy
In suggesting
Manas theobjectofmystudies,
moment.
dispelled
anthropology
man
toexplain
thecomplete
doubts'.
isnothing
lessthananeffort
(TT,p. 62).'Ethnology
from
the
ofstudying
ofman. . . theaimistoisolate,
thewholesocialexperience
bymeans
is infinitessimal
but
massofcustoms,
a precipitate
andinstitutions,
whichoften
creeds
initself
ofman'.(1953c,
contains
theverymeaning
p. 70).
48. TT, p. 62.
49. TT, pp.44-5.
we maylater
eventhough
we mustfirst
50. ... to reachreality
repudiate
experience,
inwhichsentimentality
itinanobjective
reintegrate
synthesis
playsnopart'.(TT,p. 62).
topsychologism
a rational
toatomism
because
themindimposes
coherence,
51. Opposition
isuniversal.
andhistoricism
because
theexplanatory
principle
of
The epistemologies
is linkedto French
Cavaills.
structuralism
52. Formalism
through
ascontinuous,
ofknowledge
andBrunschvig
involved
a viewofthedevelopment
Bergson
undermined
such
inphysics
andmathematics
andprogressive.
cumulative,
Developments
a stable
unable
toprovide
which
became
a psychologistic
andhistoricist
ofscience,
theory
to solvethe
forscientific
foundation
truths
1971,p. 84).Cavaills
sought
(Morot-Sir,
theprovisional
whilerecognizing
scientific
truths,
problem
posedbytheneedto found
an absolute
ofanyparticular
truth.
He didthisbyestablishing
character
logicwhich
onitself,
theresult
critical
beingprogress
activity
dialectically
bya permanent
progressed
wasthetransfer
ofsuchanepistemology
kind.Theeffect
ofa necessary
butunpredictable
to theconcept
of thescientist
from
ofthelocusofscientific
theconsciousness
activity
ofconsciousness
oflogicisnotanintentional
itself.
Hencetheprogress
by
interrogation
oftheconcept
butan examination
1971,pp. 83-9;
itself,
(Morot-Sir,
bytheconcept
Dufrenne,
1967,pp.794-80.)
of Koyr,
of science
workin thehistory
theimportant
workstimulated
Cavaills
ofepistemology
workinthefield
andimportant
Vuillemin
andCanguilhem,
byGranger
liesin
andMouloud(Morot-Sir,
1971,pp.86-7).Fromourpointofviewitsimportance
ofHeidegger's
ontheanalogy
ofa 'philosophy
oftheConcept',
thedevelopment
philoactof
seesBeingbehind
asHeidegger
ofBeing.(Dufrenne,
every
1967,
p. 794).Just
sophy
instrument
the
thus
becomes
Man
see
the
man,sotheStructuralist
philosophers Concept.
ofconcepts
ofa system
issimply
forallthought
thedevelopment
ofanimpersonal
thought,
LEVI-STRAUSS'S STRUCTURALISM
427
ofwhichthethinker
isnotconscious.
Thustheformal
is 'ontologize
(Dufrenne,
1967,
itispossible
toarguethatMarxdidnotknowwhathewas
p. 789).HenceforAlthusser
whileFoucault
canargue
thatthehumanist
isnotthinking
atall(Dufrenne,
really
thinking,
ceases
to
beanactmarked
andbecomes
the
1967,
786).
p.
Thought
byanintention
simply
ofa concept.
fortheconcept
isitself
positing
Finally,
justasbeingissetaside,soisreality,
oftruth.
thecriterion
is notbasedon a relation
to thereal,buton a relation
Meaning
Thisidentification
between
oftheconcept
withtherealenables
Foucault
to
concepts.
sawthebirth
ofmanbecause
itsawthebirth
oftheconcept
of
arguethatthe19thcentury
man(Dufrenne,
1967,p. 796).
Thisbrandofneo-positivism
is notexplicitly
as aninfluence
acknowledged
byLviStrauss.
itsmarkcanbe found
Nevertheless
traced
hiswork.Methodologically,
through
forexample,
Lvi-Strauss
hasincreasingly
tended
toevaluate
databyreferethnographic
encetohis'models',
so making
themodelthemeasure
ofthereal,rather
thanviceversa
theincreasingly
formal
oftheanalysis
of
(c.f.HA,pp. 127-8).Theoretically,
emphasis
isbasedonjustthisconception
ofthought,
inthiscasethemyth,
itself
on
myth
unfolding
thebasisof itsunconscious
without
to theintention
of the
structure,
anyreference
orhisculture
itshould
benotedthatthisformalist
(RC,pp.12,341).Finally,
mythologiser
isquitedistinct
from
thelegitimate
offormalization,
inwhich
scientific
philosophy
activity
issyntactic,
butwitha realreference
1973,pp.283-4).I shall
language
(Marc-Lipiansky,
notdiscuss
theinfluence
ofneo-positivism
onLvi-Strauss's
workanyfurther
because
he
showsnosignofhaving
inanysystematic
studied
theformer
way.
53. TT, p. 63.
54. I955f,
p. 1216.
55. TT, p. 63.
from
infailing
differs
German
neo-Kantianism
tomakethedistinction,
funda56. Durkheim
mental
factandvalue.It is thisintegration
to thelatter,
between
of normative
and
to whichLvi-Strauss
fortheconsequence
is theglorification
ofthe
objective
objects,
socialgroup
: 'Obviously
couldtakepretence
ofsucha doctrine
tocrush
anysocialorder
andspontaneity.
individual
madeits
moral,
social,orintellectual
thought
Every
progress
asa revolt
first
oftheindividual
thegroup*.
However,
appearance
against
(FS,pp.529-30).
isnottoseparate
Lvi-Strauss's
solution
factandvalue,butrather
toseektofound
bothin
theindividual.
Thisis thesourceofthemostfundamental
ofLvi-Strauss's
problems
forwhile
itmaybepossible
totaketheasocial
individual
asthebasisofa morality,
sociology,
asKantsought
todo,itisnotpossible
tobuilda sociology
onsucha foundation.
57. Kant,1948,p. 79.
is muchnearer
to Kantthanis Durkheim.
Indeedhe concurs
with
58. HenceLvi-Strauss
Ricouer's
ofhisposition
definition
as a 'Kantianism
without
a transcendental
subject'.
hehasindicated
thattheimportance
ofMarxtohimwastolead
(1970b,
p. 61).Recently
himtoHegelandKant(1971b,
heseesDurkheim
asa Kantian
p.65).Certainly
(FS,p. 518).
toanykindofmetaphysics
59. HenceLvi-Strauss's
strong
objection
(TT,p. 62;SM,p. 25$).
60. AsMerleau-Ponty
a massive
butan
putsit: 'Thissocialfact,whichis no longer
reality
ofsymbols
efficacious
ora network
ofsymbolic
isgoingtobeinserted
in
values,
system
thedepths
oftheindividual.
Buttheregulation
which
circumvents
theindividual
doesnot
him.Itisnolonger
eliminate
tochoose
between
theindividual
andthecollective*.
necessary
renounced
has,however,
1964,p. 115).Lvi-Strauss
(Merleau-Ponty,
Merleau-Ponty's
ofhistheory
interpretation
(1970b,
p. 73).
61. Lvi-Strauss,
1946a.
62. FS,p. 528.
63. FS,p. 518.
64. IM,p. xxvii.
428
SIMON CLARKE
65. FS,p. 518.

66. FS,p. 528.Compare
SA,p. 65.
67. FS,p. 508.
68. FS,p. 534.
69. FS,pp.517-8.
. . . Thisanalytical
issocialmorphology
work,
70. ... thetrueandonlybasisofsociology
andelementary
data
.
.
.
into
more
of
the
concrete
to
reduce
the
simple
complexity
trying
taskofsociology.'
isstillthefundamental
structures
(FS,pp.524-5).
of
between
nature
theopposition
thecollective
71. 'We shallhavethehopeofovercoming
sincetheso-called
conscious"collective
intheindividual,
anditsmanifestations
culture
onthelevelofindividual
benomorethantheexpression
ness*
would,inthefinal
analysis,
oftheuniversal
lawswhich
timeandspacemodalities
ofcertain
andbehaviour,
thought
ofthemind.'(SA,p. 65).
makeuptheunconscious
activity
fora symbolism
whichextends
is bothsimpleelement
72. '. . . thepsychical
ofsignification
canonlybe
ofa reality
whosemultiple
it,andsolemeans
aspects
ofverification
beyond
outside
itself'.
intheform
ofa synthesis
(IM,pp.xxvi-xxvii).
grasped
73. 1943c,
p. 178.
formwholes,
the
ofthebeliefthatsocialsystems
theinitiator'
74. Maussis 'undoubtedly
ofcontemporary
'veritable
credo
(1953c,
p. 115).
ethnology'
75. FS,p. 528.
76. FS,pp.525,527.
77. FS,p. 529.
in 1944.
78. 1943a;1943b;1944a;1944b;1944c;1946cwaswritten
ofLowieseemsclearhere(c.f.Lowie,1941).
in 1944a.Theinfluence
79. Especially
80. FS,p. 516.
81. 1944a,p. 46.
82. FS,p. 517.
cannot
whenitiscalleduponunremittingly
83. 'Ifhistory,
(anditmustbe calleduponfirst)
offorms;
letus
orthestructural
thenletusappealtopsychology,
analysis
yieldananswer,
will
ora logicalnature,
ofa psychological
whether
askourselves
ifinternal
connections,
cannot
andcohesion
whosefrequency
recurrences
allowustounderstand
possibly
parallel
canexplain
butonlyinternal
connections
ofchance
. . . External
betheresult
transmission,
forpersistence.'
canaccount
connections
(SA,pp.248,258).
84. 1944b,
pp. 17-18.
85. 1944b;1944c.
86. 1944a.
87. 1943a.
of complementarity
in terms
of therelation
Christmas
88. 1943b.A laterarticle
analyses
not
of
the
transaction
between
Xmas
is
the
Father
between
generations,
agent
generations.
a mystification
onchildren
inflicted
byadults(i952d).
89. Mauss,1966.
90. IM,p. XXXV.
an effort
wasmadeto
ofethnological
timein thehistory
91. Hence'forthefirst
thought,
realities'.
andreachdeeper
transcend
observation
(IM,p. xxxiii).
empirical
92. IM,p. xxxiii.
93. IM,p. xxxviii.
94. Mauss,1966,p. 80.
intheealier
inIM (1950a).
Itis,however,
isfound
criticism
already
implicit
95. Lvi-Strauss's
of
analyses reciprocity.
96. ESK,p. 139.
S STRUCTURALISM
LEVI-STRAUSS*
429
had
a
Mauss
'non-intellectualis
available
to
him.
But
he
would
have
97.
only
psychology
'a psychology
welcomed
whichwasintellectualist
inanother
, thegeneralized
way
expressionofthelawsofhuman
thought.'
(IM,p. li).
98. 1948a,
pp.50-5.
99. TT, pp.294-7.
100.e.g.1943a,1944a,1944c,i949d,ESK,p. 67.
101.1943a.
102.1943a,
p. 138.
103.1943a,
p. 139.
104.1944c,
pp.267-8.
105.1944b.
106.1947a.
107.1955a,
29.
Chapter
108.1946c,
ofreciprocity
enables
Lvi-Strauss
to overcome
the
pp.651-2.Hencethenotion
oftherelation
between
theindividual
andthecollective
inhisownsociety.
It
problem
cannot
beresolved
ina subordination
oftheindividual
tosociety
butonlyina relation
of
massandelitesuchasisfound
between
intheU.S.A.
reciprocity
Gestaltist
oftheconcept
formulation
offunction.
109.1944b,
p. 18.A typically
no. 1944b,
p. 20.
iii. 1944b,
p. 18.
112.1944b,
p. 31113.1944b,
p. 26.
114.1944b,
pp.28-9.
115.1944b,
p. 31.
116.' . . theRuleis theaffirmation
of reciprocity;
is theimmediate
modeof
reciprocity
theopposition
between
theselfandtheother
suchan integration
; without
integrating
there
wouldbenosociety.'
1949,p. 945).
(deBeauvoir,
117.FS,p. 518.
118.c.f.ESK,p. 312.Reciprocity
isstated
tobethecondition
ofpossibility
ofsociety
onESK,
pp.31,101,136,490.
119.IL,p. 25.
120.1971,p. 63.
121.Granet
(1939);(19711 p. 62).
122.ESK,p. 251.
himself
omits
Itseems
references.
thathederived
hisideasfrom
van
123.ESK,p. 131.Granet
Wouden(ESK,p.312),whoseworkLvi-Strauss
didnotdiscuss.
124.Granet,
1939,p. 2.
125.Granet,
1939,p. 147.
126.Granet,
1939,p. 170.
127.Oranet,
1939,pp.216,228.
128.Granet,
1939,pp.42,83.
129.Granet,
1939,pp.74-5,107.
130.Granet,
1939,pp.158-9.
131.Granet,
1939,p. 148.
132.Granet,
1939,p. 83.
133.ESK,p. 320.
hedoes,mistakenly,
acclaim
inthisarticle
forhisbreakthrough
134.Although
to
Trubeckoj
theunconscious,
C.f.Mounin,
iselsewhere
attributed
to
1970,p. 202.Thebreakthrough
Boas(SA,p. 19).
135.FS,pp.518,520.
430
SIMON CLARKE
136.SA,pp.202-3.
137.IM,pp.xxxi,xxxvi,li.
therelationship
between
structural
andLvi-Strauss's
later
138.SA,p. 62.1discuss
linguistics
workinmuchmoredetailelsewhere
(Clarke,
1975).
1wouldliketothank
andcolleagues
thosefriends
whosecomments
on
30.3.77.
139.Accepted
earlier
drafts
ofthispaperhavebeeninvaluable.
I wouldalsoliketothank
Professor
Lviandgenerous
Strauss
forhisprompt
to enquiries.
He,leastofall,bearsany
response
fortheargument
ofthepaper.
responsibility
References
L. (1970).Reading
NLB. London.
Althusser,
Capital.
International
Vol.6,
Asch,S. (1968).Gestalt
,Macmillan,
theory,
oftheSocialSciences
Encyclopedia
158-75.
pp.
Paris.
Auzias,J.-M.(1967).Clefs
pourleStructuralisme.
Seghers,
S.de(1949).
Lesstructures
lmentaires
delaparent,
Beauvoir,
Modernes,
49,November,
Temps
pp.943-49.
Practice
andtheSocialSciences,
Castells,M. andde Ipola (1976).Epistemological
Economy
andSociety
, 5,2.
Ph.D.thesis.
ofEssex.
Clarke,S. (1975).TheStructuralism
ofCl. Lvi-Strauss.
University
M. (1967).La philosophie
duno-positivisme.
Dufrenne,
, pp.781-800.
Esprit
matrimoniales
etrelations
deproximit
dansla Chineancienne,
Granet,M. (1939).Catgories
Anne
, series
B, fase.1-3,pp. 1-251.
Sociologique
London.
Kant,I. (1948).TheMoralLaw(H.J.Patontrans.)
Hutchinson,
K. (1931).Gestalt,
Sciences
NY.
Koffka,
,Vol.VI,pp.642-5.Macmillan,
Encyclopedia
oftheSocial
NY.
Kohler,K. (1929).Gestalt
Psychology.
comestoAfrica,
SocialResearch
Kuper,A. (1970).Lvi-Strauss
, 10,
Speaking
English,
African
pp.769-787.
G ofBrazil,American
Lowie,R. (1941).A Noteon theNorthern
, 67,5, pp.
Anthropologist
142-185.
M. (1973).Le Structuralisme
deClaude
Lvi-Strauss.
Marc-Lipiansky,
Payot,Paris.
Mauss,M. (1966).TheGift.
CohenandWest,London.
M. (1964).FromMausstoClaudeLvi-Strauss,
inSigns
UP.
Merleau-Ponty,
, Northwestern
E. (1971).La Pense
Morot-Sir,
PUF,Paris.
Franaise
d'aujourd'hui.
a la Smiologie.
Paris.
Mounin,G. (1970).Introduction
Minuit,
deGarde.
Paris.
Nizan,P. (1932).LesChiens
Rieder,
Structurales
etIdologies
Structuralistes.
Toulouse.
Parain-Vial,
Privat,
J.(1969).Analyses
Piaget,J.(1971).Structuralism.
RKP,London.
UP.
W. (1972).PaulNizan.Princeton
Redfern,
dela Raison
Paris.
Sartre,J.-P.(i960).Critique
Gallimard,
Dialectique.
Heinnemann.
(965).Situations.
structurale
etmthode
Pense
Seve,L. (1967).Mthode
, 135,pp.63-93.
dialectique,
danslesSciences
Structuralistes
Sociales.
TheHague.
Viet,J.(1965).LesMthodes
Mouton,
s works:
Abbreviations
used
forLvi-Strauss'
ESK = TheElementary
Structures
, 19691.
ofKinship
FKS = TheFuture
Studies
, I965f.
ofKinship
FS = French
Sociology.
1946a.
HA = From
toAshes.
1973b.
Honey
HN = L'Homme
Nu.1971a.
IL = TheScopeofAnthropology.
1967I.
etAnthropologie.
IM = Introduction
toM. Mauss:Sociologie
1950a.
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
RC
SA
SM
TT
=
=
=
=
431
TheRawandtheCooked
. 1969c.
Structural
1968k.
Anthropology.
TheSavage
Mind.1966h.
Tristes
1961h.
Tropiques.
Thepublished
works
Lvi-Strauss
ofClaude
areincluded
translations
OnlymajorEnglish
1936
a. Contribution
l'Etudede l'Organisation
SocialedesIndiens
Bororo.
dela Socit
Journal
desAmricanistes
version:
in Revista
do
, xxviii,2, pp. 269-304,
plates7-10.(Portuguese
, iii, 27,pp.5-80,SaoPaulo.)
Arquivo
Municipal
osSelvagems
b. Entre
Civilizados.
deSoPaulo.(ColeodoDepartimento
O Estado
Municipal
de Cultura,
i). SaoPaulo.
c. Os MaisVastosHorizontes
do Mundo.Filosofia
e Letras
, Cincias
, i, So Paulo,pp.66-9.
1937
a. A propsito
da Civilisao
Revista
doArquivo
, iv,42,pp.
Chaco-Santiaguense.
Municipal
5-38.SoPaulo.
b. La Sociologie
Culturelle
etsonEnseignement.
Cincias
e Letras
, 2, So Paulo.
Filosofia,
c. Poupes
dela Sociedade
deEtnografia
e deFolklore
, i, So Paulo.
Karaja.Boletim
d. Indiens
du MatoGrosso,
deVExposition,
etc.(mission
Claudeet
Brazil,Guide-Catalogue
Dina Lvi-Strauss),
Musede l'Homme,
Paris,MusumNationald'Histoire
Naturelle,
pp.1-14.
1942
a. IndianCosmetics,
VW , i,i, NewYork,pp.33-5.
b. Souvenir
ofMalinovski,
WV, i,i, NewYork,p. 45.
1943
a. Guerre
etCommerce
chezlesIndiens
del'Amrique
duSud,Renaissance
, revuetrimestielle
i, 1 and2, NewYork,pp.122-139.
publie
parl'EcoleLibredesHautesEtudes,
b. The SocialUse ofKinship
TermsamongBrazilian
Indians.
Am.Anth
., Vol. 45, 3, pp.
398-409.
c. TheArtoftheNorthwest
Coastat theAmerican
Museum
ofNatural
Gazette
History.
desBeauxArts
Vol.24,pp.175-82.
, NewYork,6thseries,
d. ReviewofL. W. Simmons
SocialResearch,
Vol.10,pp.515-7.
(ed.)SunChief,
1944
a. On DualOrganisation
inSouthAmerica.
America
, 4,pp.37-47.
Indigena
b. The SocialandPsychological
ofChieftainship
in a Primitive
Tribe.Trans.
NY
Aspects
Acad.Sci.,series
ii,Vol.7,No. 1,pp.16-32.
c. Reciprocity
andHierarchy.
Am.Anth.,
Vol.46,No. 2,pp.266-8.
d. ReviewofE. da Cunha:Rebellion
intheBacklands,
Am.Anth.,
xlvi,pp.394-6.
1945
a. Le Ddoublement
delaReprsentation
danslesArtsdel'Asieetdel'Amrique.
Renaissance
,
Vols,ii andiii,NewYork,pp.168-86,
12plates.
xiiiofSA).
(Chapter
b. L'Oeuvred'Edward
Westermarck.
RevuedeVHistoire
desReligions,
cxxix,Nos,1 and2-3,
pp.84-100.
c. L'Analyse
Structurale
enLinguistique
etenAnthropologie.
Vol.i, No. 2,pp.1-12.
Word,
ii ofSA).
(Chapter
432
SIMON CLARKE
1946
in Twentieth
a. French
yG.Gurvitch
(ed.)NewYork,pp.503-37.
Century
Sociology
Sociology,
PUF,Paris,1947).
edition,
(French
Am.Anth
b. TheNameoftheNambikwara,
., Vol.48,No. 1,pp.139-40.
No. 127,pp.643-652.
duBonheur.
c. La Technique
Esprity
1947
in LesDoctrines
Modernes
a. La Thoriedu PouvoirdansuneSocitPrimitive,
,
Politiques
of1944b).
modified
version
NewYork,pp.41-63.(Slightly
Brentano's,
du
lesLangues
Chibcha
etNambikwara.
Actes
entre
Similarits
Structurales
b. SurCertaines
desAmericanist
International
XXVIIIme.
es,Paris,pp.185-92.
Congrs
xivofSA).
au CorpsRempli
dePoissons,
c. Le Serpent
id.,pp.633-6.(Chapter
1948
desAmricanistes,
Nambikwara
desIndiens
etSociale
a. La VieFamiliale
, Paris,Socit
132pp.,
7 plates.
Indians
in Handbook
b. The Nambicuara,
, J. Steward(ed.),Bureauof
ofSouthAmerican
Vol.iii,pp.361-9,
Smithsonian
American
Institution,
36-7.
plates
Washington,
Ethnology,
id., pp.299-305,
c. TheTupi-Kawahib,
24-6.
plates
id., pp.321-48,
d. TheTribesoftheUpperXinguRiver,
plates27-34.
id., pp.371-9,plate38.
e. TheTribesoftheRightBankoftheGuapor
River,
Anne
f. ReviewofL. W. Simmons
, 3rdSeries,
1948-9.
Sociologique
(ed.)SunChief,
1949
dela Parent.
Elmentaires
a. LesStructures
PUF,Paris,640pp.,88figures
(PrixPaulPelliot).
ix ofSA).
b. Le Sorcier
etsaMagie,TM,41,pp.3-24.(Chapter
x
desReligions
RevuedeVHistoire
c. L'Efficacit
, cxxxv,1,pp. 5-27.(Chapter
Symbolique,
ofSA).
d'uneSocit
d. La Politique
, 2,mai,pp.139-52.
Primitive,
Etrangre
Politique
Etrangre
etdeMorale
RevuedeMtaphysique
e. Histoire
etEthnologie,
, 54meanne,3-4,pp.363-91.
i ofSA).
(Chapter
1950
etAnthropologie
in Sociologie
a. Introduction,
, MarcelMauss,PUF,Paris,pp.ix-lii.(Alsoin
Cah.Int.Soc.,8, 1950,pp.72-112).
dePsychologie
Matrimoniales
et leurFondement
b. Les Prohibitions
Journal
Psychologique,
etPathologique
Normale
, 43,p. 409.
Indians
American
Handbook
inTropical
SouthAmerica,
c. TheUseofWildPlants
,
ofSouth
Smithsonian
Institution,
Washington,
Ethnology,
(ed.)Bureauof American
J.Steward
Vol.vi,pp.465-486.
d'Haiti
Danses
d. Prface
K. Dunham,
Paris,pp.7-11.
, Fasquelle,
Australia
inNorthern
Ceremonies
C. Berndt,
Women's
e. Prface
, Vol.1,
, L'Homme
Changing
No. I, Hermann,
Paris,
pp.3-8.
desAmricanistes,
dela Socit
f. Documents
xxxix,pp.84-100.
Rama-Rama,
Journal
dela Syrieetdel'Inde,Syria,
Provenant
d'UsageDouteux
ObjetsenPoterie
g. SurCertains
xxvii,fase.1-2,pp.1-4.
1951
modified
ofSocialLaws,Am.Anth.,
andtheAnalysis
a. Language
53,2,pp.155-63(Slightly
iiiofSA.)
version
chapter
desSciences
Sociales
Bulletin
International
b. Avant-propos,
3,4,pp.825-829.
, UNESCO,Paris,
au Pakistan,
c. LesSciences
Sociales
id.,pp.885-892.
desHautes
Annuaire
deVEcolePratique
d. La Visite
desAmes,
Etudes,
1951-2,pp.20-23.
S STRUCTURALISM
LVI-STRAUSS*
433
1952
in English
as RaceandHistory).
a. RaceetHistoire.
UNESCO, Paris,52pp. (Alsopublished
enEthnologie,
Cah.Int.Soc., xii,pp. 3-25.(Chapter
b. La NotionArchaisme
vi ofSA).
dansle BrsilCentral
et Oriental,
inProceedings
Sociales
c. LesStructures
ofthe2g thInterofChicagoPress,
national
, iii,University
Congress
ofAmericanists
pp.302-10.
d. Le PreNoelSupplici,
TM,7meanne,
77,pp.1572-90.
ofThreeChittagong
HillTribes,
e. Kinship
8, 1,pp.40-51.
Systems
SWJAnth.,
f. Miscellaneous
NotesontheKuki,Man, 5,284,pp.167-9.
d'unvillage
deChittagong,
RevuedeVHistoire
g. Le Syncrtisme
Religieux
mogduterritoire
desReligions
, cxli,2,pp.202-237.
Ann.deVEPHE
h. Recherches
deMythologie
Amricaine,
, 1952-3,
pp.19-21.
1953
a. SocialStructure,
inAnthropology
ofChicagoPress,
, A. L. Kroeber
(ed.),University
Today
version
asChapter
xvofSA).
pp.524-558.
(Modified
b. Contributions
inAnAppraisal
to Discussion
Sol Tax etal. (eds.),
ofAnthropology
Today.
ofChicagoPress.
University
c. Panorama
del'Ethnologie,
edn.pp.69-92).
, 2,pp.96-123.(English
Diogene
d. Chapter
of theConference,
toInternational
One,in Results
etc.,Supplement
Journal
of
American
version
as Chapter
iv ofSA).
, 19,2,pp.1-10.(Modified
Linguistics
e. Recherches
deMythologie
Amricaine
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1953-4,
(Suite),
PP-27-9.
f. Structure
Bulletin
dePsychologie
version
of1953a).
Sociale,
, vi,5,358-90(French
1954
a. Rapports
entre
la Mythologie
etle Rituel,
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1954-5,
PP-25-8.
b. L'Artde Dchiffrer
lesSymboles,
Editionpp. 102-8).
, 5, pp. 128-135.
Diogene
(English
c. Placedel'Anthropologie
danslesSciences
Sociales
etProblmes
PossparsonEnseignement,
inLesSciences
Sociales
dansVEnseignement
Suprieure
(rapports
prpars
parC. W. Guillebaudetal.),UNESCO,Paris,32pp.(Chapter
xviiofSA is a slightly
modified
version).
d. Qu'Estce qu'unPrimitif?
UNESCOCourier
, Paris,8-9,pp.5-7.
e. Obituary
ofM. Leenhardt.
notice
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1954-6,
pp.21-2.
1955
a. Tristes
, Pion,Paris,
462pp.,54fig.,62illus.
Tropiques
b. LesProhibitions
duMarriage,
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1955-6,
pp.39-40.
c. Les Structures
Elmentaires
de la Parent,
in La Progense
de
, etc.,CentreInternational
etDocuments
l'Enfance,
Masson,
Paris,
(Travaux
pp.105-110.
VIII).
d. TheStructural
ofMyth,
Folklore
, 68,270,pp.428-444.
Study
Journal
ofAmerican
(Ch.XI
ofSAismodified
Alsoreprinted
version.
inSeboek,
T. Myth:
A Symposium.
Indiana
UP.,
1965).
e. HowtheGiftStarted.
UNESCOCourier
Dec. 1955,pp.8-9.
, Paris,
f. DiogneCouch,TM,no.no, pp.1187-1220.
etleurEthnographie,
TM,116,pp.1-50.(Partof1955a).
g. Des Indiens
h. Rponse
RogerCaillois,
TM, ni, pp.1535-6.
1956
a. TheFamily,
in Man, Culture
andSociety
, H. L. Shapiro(ed.),OxfordUniversity
Press,
pp.524-558.
b. LesOrganisations
Dualistes
Existent-ils?
Bijd., 112,2,pp.99-128.(Ch.VIIIofSA).
c. Reviewof G. Balandier,
desBrazza
villesNoires,RevueFranaise
de Sciences
Sociologie
yvi,1,pp.177-9.
Politiques
d. Sorciers
etPsychanalyse,
, Paris,
Jul.-Aug.,
pp.8-10.
UNESCO^Courier
SIMON CLARKE
434
in ForRoman
on theOccasionofhisSixtieth
et Dialectique,
e. Structure
, Essays
Jakobson
TheHague,pp.289-94.(Ch.XII ofSA).
Mouton,
Birthday.
ongames).
issues
States
Lines
United
f. Jeuxde Socit,
, ParisReview
(special
VActualit
Littraire
, 26,pp.29-32.
g. La FindesVoyages,
Demain
h. LesTroisHumanismes,
, 35.
au
Le
Droit
, 21Septembre,
p. 16.
L'Express
Voyage,
j.
surla Notiond'Ame,Ann.deVEPHE
Rcentes
k. Recherches
, 1956-7,
pp.16-18.
ofMan,ISSJ,6,4,pp.581-90.(AlsoinEsprit
1. TheMathematics
, 24,10,pp.525-3
8).
dePhilosophie
Bulletin
dela Socit
Entre
leMythe
etleRituel,
m. SurlesRapports
, 50,
Franaise
3,pp.99-125.
1957
de
Socialeet l'Organisation
Crmonielle
a. Le Symbolisme
Cosmiquedansla Structure
inLe Symbolisme
desMonuments
Nordet Sud-Amricaines,
Plusiers
Cosmique
Populations
Italiano
Roma,Vol.14)(Istituto
, Roma,IsMEO,pp.47-56.(SrieOrientale
peril
Religieux
MedioedEstremo
Oriente).
- B. Malinovski,
Am.Anth.t
PastandPresent,
b. ReviewofR. Briffaut
59,5,pp.
Marriage:
902-3.
Ann.deVEPHE
SocialeetlesReprsentations
dansL'Organisation
c. LeDualisme
,
Rligieuses,
1957-8,
PP-32-5.
UNESCOCourier
d. Thesecooksdidnotspoilthebroth.
, 10,pp.12-3.
L'ArtMagique
andG. Legrand:
inA. Breton
e. Letter
toA. Breton,
, Paris,p. 56.
1958
Structurale
a. Anthropologie
, Pion,Paris,454pp.,23figs.,
13illus.
etJeteurs
deSorts,
Sorciers
toM. Bouteiller,
b. Prface
Pion,Paris,
pp.i-vi.
c. ReviewofR. Firth
, 28,pp.370-1.
(ed.):ManandCulture,
Africa
VExpress
d. Dis-moiquelsChampignons,
, 10avril,
p. 17.
e. OneWorld,ManySocieties,
, March,
pp.28-30.
WayForum
Ann.deVEPHE
SocialeetlesReprsentations
dansl'Organisation
f. LeDualisme
,
Rligieuses,
1958-9,
pp.50-3.
PaulRivet
inMiscellanea
, Mexico,Vol.2, pp.323-338.
Tupi-Kawahib,
g. Documents
in TM, 179,
Ann.de VEPHE
h. La Gested'Asdiwal,
, 1958-9,PP-3-43 (Alsopublished
March,
1961).
de Documentation
Universitaire.
Paris.Centre
etTravaux.
Projetd'Enseignement.
j. Titres
1959
Paris.
duSud,inLe Masque
duNordetAmrique
a. Amrique
, MuseGuimet,
b. Le Masque.L'Express
, 443,10Dec.,pp.46-7.
Brittanica.
c. Mauss,Marcel.
Encyclopaedia
Brittanica.
Rites.Encyclopaedia
d. Passage
SoleilHopitPion,Paris,
toD. Talaysesva,
e. Preface
pp.i-x.
1960
in S. Diamond(ed.)Culture
andHistory
A Structural
a. FourWinnebago
,
Sketch,
Myths.
Columbia
U.P.,NewYork,pp.351-362.
Ann.deVEPHE
auxAigles,
b. La ChasseRituelle
, 1959-60,
pp.38-42.
Annales
Socialedevant
c. L'Anthropologie
,July-August,
l'Histoire,
pp.625-637.
surles
enAsie.Colloque
de la Recherche
etConditions
d. Mthodes
Franaise
Ethnologique
Recherches
Paris,
, etc.,Fondation
pp.111-125.
Singer-Polignac,
Revuedel'Enseignement
de la Reflxion
e. LesTroisSources
, pp.
Suprieure
Ethnologique,
43-50.
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
435
Reflexions
surunOuvrage
deVladimir
etla Forme.
Cahiers
de
l'Institut
f. La Structure
Propp,
et DialoguesPhilos,et Econ.,7), No. 9,
deSciences
, (Recherches
Appliques
Economiques
desContesRusses.
International
Paris,
Morphologique
Journal
pp.3-36.Alsoas: L'Analyse
Poetics
and
Slavic
,
3,
122-49.
pp.
of
Linguistics
., 116,1,pp.45-54.
Models,
Sociological
Bijd
g. On Manipulated
Annales
del'Universit
Doit Durkheim,
deParis
h. Ce quel'Ethnologie
, 30 (1),pp.47-52.
duCollge
Annuaire
deFrance
desCoursetTravaux
, pp. 191-207.
(1959-60),
j. Rsum
en Anthropologie,
de l'Invariance
edition
k. Le Problme
31,pp.23-33.(English
Diogene
pp.19-28.)(Partof1960m).
Paris.47pp.
FaiteleMardi
1. Leon
5Janvier
i960, Collgede France,
Inaugurale
Littraire
m. Interview
withJ-PWeber.Figaro
, 14March.
20October.
n. Interview
withL'Express.
1961
ofDoubleDescent
Current
onGoody,Classification
a. Comment
, 2,
Systems,
Anthropology
p. 17.
Ann.del'EPHE, 1960-61.
b. Recherches
d'Ethnologie
Religieuse,
UNESCOCourier
inAnthropology,
c. Today'sCrisis
, 14(11),12-17.
delettres
Annales
d. Le Mtier
, revuemensuelle
129,pp.5-17.
franaises,
d'Ethnologue,
duCollge
deFrance
Annuaire
desCoursetTravaux
e. Rsum
, pp.191-205.
(1960-61),
No. 2,pp.128,132-5,
f. Various
L'Homme
Reviews,
, Vol.1,No. 1,pp.111-4,127-9,J42^3,
I37>138,142-3,No. 3,p. 129.
avecClaude
Lvi-Strauss.
G.) Entretiens
Plon-Julliard.
g. (Charbonnier,
Criterion
chs.xiv,xv,
h. Tristes
Books,NewYork,(omits
, translated
byJ.Russell,
Tropiques
xvi,xxxixoforiginal.)
1962
a. Le Totmisme
yP.U.F.,Paris,154pp.
Aujourd'hui
8 illus.
b. La Pense
Sauvage
L'Homme
c. (WithR.Jakobson),
LesChatsde Charles
Baudelaire,
, Vol.2, No. 1,pp.5-21.
inJean-Jacques
desSciences
de l'Homme,
Fondateur
Rousseau
d. Jean-Jacques
, La
Rousseau,
Neufchatel,
Baconnire,
pp.239-48.
inR. Bastide
enEthnologie
du
e. LesLimites
de la Notionde Structure
(ed.)SensetUsages
TheHague,pp.40-5,and143-5,
Terme
Mouton,
Structure,
150,157,159.
Linguarum,
Janua
duCollge
deFrance
Annuaire
f. Rsum
desCoursetTravaux
, pp.211-217.
(1961-2),
Revue
des
Travaux
del'Acadmie
des
Faits
des
Sur
le
Caractre
Distinctif
Ethnologiques,
g.
Morales
etPolitiques,
Sciences
Paris,pp.211-9.
ii5mcanne,4mcsrie,
No. 3,pp.134-47,
L'Homme
h. Various
, Vol.2,No. 2,pp.139-41,
Reviews,
I4I~3a ClaudeLvi-Strauss,
de
byEliseoVeron,Cuestiones
Hoy:Entrevista
j. La Antropologia,
, i, Nos.2-3,BuenosAires.
Filosofia
2. Recherches
k. I. LesFondements
del'Anthropologie,
Ann.
Philosophiques
Smiologiques,
del'EPHE, 1961-2,
pp.40-2.
1. L'Ethnologue
Avantl'Heure,
LesNouvelles
Littraires
, 29Nov.
m. Le TempsRetrouv,
TM,191,pp.1402-31.
(Ch.8 of1962b.)
1963
dansDeuxTribusSud-Amricaines,
deProprit
a. (WithN. Belmont)
L'Homme
,
Marques
Vol.3,pp.102-8.
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance
b Rsum
desCoursetTravaux
, pp.223-7.
(1962-3),
etleDveloppement
c. LesDiscontinuits
Culturelles
etSociale,TableRonde
sur
Economique
del'Industrialisation
lesPrmices
Sociales
(1961),UNESCO, Paris.(Alsoin SocialSciences
, 1963,pp.7-15.)
Information
SIMON CLARKE
436
Quelques
d. Rponses
, 322,pp.628-653.
Questions,
Esprit
TheHenry
e. TheBearandtheBarber,
Lecture,
Journal
MyerMemorial
oftheRoyalAnthroInstitute
, 93,ptl,pp. 1-11.
pological
ofAnthropology,
UNESCOCourier
f. Rousseau,
theFather
, 16,3,pp.10-14.
No. 3,pp.126-7,133~4
Vol.3,No. 1,p. 140,No.2,pp.136-8,
L'Homme,
Reviews,
g. Various
Ann.deVEPHE
h. Compte
Rendud'Enseignement,
, 1962-3,
40-3.
pp.
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1963-4,
pp.42-5.
j. Compte
A. Mtraux
dela Socit
desAmricanistes
k. (WithR. d'Harcourt)
, n.s.
(1902-1963).
Journal
$2,pp.301-11.
AutAut77,Milan.
1. Conversazioni
conCI. Lvi-Strauss
(a curadi P. Caruso).
XmasComeFrom,
NewSociety
of
m. WhereDoesFather
, 64,Dec. 19th,
pp.6-8.(Adaptation
I952d.)
1964
Le CruetleCuit
a. Mythologiques:
4 illus.
deVUniversit
deParis
Annales
b. Alfred
, 1.
Mtraux,
1902-63,
desAmricanistes
dela Socit
c. LucienSebag,
, liii,p. 182.
Journal
Alfred
Vol.4,No. 2,pp.5-8.
d. Hommage
Mtraux,
L'Homme,
duCollge
Annuaire
deFrance
e. Rsum
desCoursetTravaux(1963-4),
, pp.227-231.
SocialScience
intheSocialandHumanDisciplines,
International
ofScience
f. Criteria
,
Journal
edition,
xvi,4,pp.534-552.
(French
pp.579-597).
Ann.deVEPHE
, 1964-5,
pp.51-6.
g. Compte
London.
h. Totemism
Merlin,
, translated
byR. Needham,
1965
RevuedeVEnseignement
d'unLaboratoire
a. Prsentation
Sociale,
3,pp.87-92.
Suprieure,
duCollge
deFrance
Annuaire
Rsum
desCoursetTravaux
, pp.269-73.
(1964-5),
Arts-Loisirs
Pollues
del'Art,
c. LesSources
, 7-13,April,
p. 4.
dite'structurale'),
unQuestionnaire
d. Rponse
, n.s.2, 182,Milan,
(surla critique
Paragone
pp.125-9.
Littraire
de notre
e. Rponse
unQuestionnaire
, 1023,p. 9.
(sur25 tmoins
temps),
Figaro
ofKinship
f. TheFuture
Lecture,
Studies,
1965,Proceedings
oftheRoyal
HuxleyMemorial
Institute
, London,
pp.13-22.
Anthropological
andJ.Rivette),
LesCahiers
deCinma
avecClaudeLvi-Strauss
,
(byM. Delahaye
g. Entretien
xxvi,4,pp.19-29.
h. Le Triangle
L'Arc,
26,Aix-en-Provence,
Culinaire,
pp.19-29.
Ann.deVEPHE,(1965-6),
pp.51-6.
j. Compte
AsHe Is Today,Ralits
k. ManHasNeverBeenSo Strange
, 175,pp.48-51.
vol.15,No. 2,p. 147.
1. Review,
L'Homme,
del'Institut
dela Vie, 4,pp.31-6.
Cahiers
m. Civilisation
Urbaine
etSantMentale,
n. Interview
withP. Caruso,
Culturale,
Rinascita,
5,29/3.
Supplemento
1966
2 Du MielauxCendres,
a. Mythologiques:
Pion,Paris,450pp.
andFuture,
b. Anthropology:
ItsAchievements
Nature,
209,pp.10-13.
duCollge
deFrance,
Annuaire
c. Resum
desCoursetTravaux
pp.269-73.
(1965-6),
issueonanthropology),
dePhilosophie
d. Interview
accorded
to Cahiers
1,pp.47~5<>.
(special
26 April,No. 26,pp.
withClaudeLvi-Strauss.
A Conversation
e. (G. Steiner),
Encounter,
32-38.
Ann.deVEPHE(1966-7),
f. Compte
pp.61-3.
of1965h).
NewSociety
, 22ndDecember,
pp.937-40.(Translation
Triangle,
g. TheCulinary
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
437
h. TheSavage
Mind
trans.
Weidenfeld
and
London,
from
,
Anon,
Nicholson,
(omits
Appendix
Original).
Current
7, 2,pp.112-123.(Partof1967I).
j. TheScopeofAnthropology,
Anthropology,
k. Humanity,
whatis it?Interview
withCI. Lvi-Strauss.
Kroeber
Anthropological
Society
translation
ofi9on).
, 35,pp.41-53.(English
Papers
1. Interview
withCI. Lvi-Strauss
Atlas,
245-6.
byP. Caruso,
April,
m. TheWorkoftheBureau
ofAmerican
anditsLessons
inKnowledge
Men,
Ethnology
Among
Smithsonian
Institution,
n. A Proposd'uneRetrospective.
Arts
60,16-22November.
1967
a. LesStructures
Elmentaires
dela Parent
andcorrected
The
, 2ndrevised
edition,
Mouton,
Hague.
b. A Contre-Courant,
Interview
withG. Dumur,
Nouvel
Observateur
, 25January,
pp.30-32.
c. Rsum
desCoursetTravaux
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance
, pp.267-74.
(1966-7),
d. Interview
withGillesLapouge,
Littraire
, 1085,pp.3, 16.
Figaro
e. La SexedesAstres,
inMlanges
Roman
The
Offerts
, Mouton,
Jakobson
poursajomeAnne
Hague.
f. Prsentation
duLaboratoire
Sociale,Sciences
, 47,pp.115-128.
d'Anthropologie
to 1967a).
TM,256,pp.385-406.
g. VingtAnsAprs,
(NewPreface
h. Compte
pp.61-3.
withR. Bellour,
LesLettres
, 1165,pp.1,3-5,7.
j. Interview
Franaises
k. TheStory
ofAsdiwal,
N. Manntrans.,
inLeach,E. (ed.),TheStructural
and
Study
ofMyth
Totemism
London.
, Tavistock,
1. TheScope
, translated
ofAnthropology
byS. O. andR. A. Paul,Cape,London.
(Translation
of1960m.)
m. TheSavageMind,Man, 2, 3,p. 464.
n. Comments,
Current
8,4,pp.359-61.
Anthropology,
0. Unelettre
deCl. Lvi-Strauss.
Cahiers
8,Oct,p. 90.
pourVanalyse,
deF. Malet.Magazine
Littraire,
Feb.,pp.42-4.
p. Entretien
1968
a. Mythologiques
desManires
deTable
3: L'Origine
, Pion,Paris.
b. Hommage
auxSciences
del'Homme,
Soc.Sei.Inf.,7,2,pp.7-11.
c. Religions
desPeuplessansEcriture,
in Problmes
et Mthodes
d'Histoire
des
Compares
PUF,Paris,
Religions,
pp.1-7.
d. La Grande
Aventure
del'Ethnologie,
Nouvel
Observateur
, 166.(Partof1970e).
e. TheConcept
ofPrimitiveness,
in R. Lee andI. DeVore(eds.)MantheHunter,
Aldine,
Chicago,
pp.349-52.
f. Contributions
toDiscussions,
inR. LeeandI. DeVore,id.
desCoursetTravaux
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance,
g. Rsum
(1967-8),
pp.305-17.
h. Compte
pp.65-6.
etSchma,
VHomme,
Evnement
j. (WithJ.Guiart),
8, 1,pp.80-7.
k. Structural
C.
and
B.
G. Schoepf,
trans.
AllenLane,London.
,
Anthropology
Jacobson
1. Speech
onreceiving
theGoldMedaloftheCNRS,Le Monde,
13January,
p. 9.
m. VivreetParler.
UnDebatentre
F.Jacob,
R.Jakobson,
Cl.Lvi-Strauss
etP. l'Heritier.
Les
Lettres
1221,14and21stFebruary,
Franaises
n. Entretien
avecClaudeLvi-Strauss,
, 8,814.
Tmoignage-Chrtien
1969
a. Conversation
withP. Caruso,
inConversazioni
conLvi-Strauss,
U. Mursia,
Foucault,
Lacan,
Milan,pp.25-90.
SIMON CLARKE
438
ofSeminars
conducted
b. Reports
Sahlins,
Monod,Pouillon,
Cresswell,
Maranda,
bySperber,
etal., Ann.deVEPHE(1969-70),
pp.109-128.
Kutuldjian,
c. TheRawandtheCooked
, translated
byJ.andD. Weightman,
Cape,London.
with
Claude
translated
d. Conversation
Lvi-Strauss,
byG. Charbonnier,
byJ.andD. Weightman,Cape,London.
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance
e. Rsum
,
f. TheElementary
Structures
edited
, translated
byJ.H. HallandJ.R. v. Strmer,
ofKinship
by
London.
R. Needham,
EyreandSpottiswood,
1970
dansla Culture.
A Proposd'unLivrede M. R. G. Wasson,VHomme,
a. LesChampignons
Vol.10,No. i, pp.5-17.
of1963d).
b. A Confrontation,
NewLeft
62,pp.57-74.(Translation
Review,
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance,
c. Rsum
pp.299-305.
d. CompteRendud'Enseignement,
pp.95-102.
Lvi-Strauss,
dansla SrieUnCertain
deMichelTrguer
Consacre
e. Textedel'Emission
oulastructure
in
Claude
Lvi-Strauss
delamalheur,
C.
Backs-Clment,
Winter,
1968
Regard.
Paris,pp.172-188.
Seghers,
inC. Backs-Clment,
f. Letter
op.cit.,p. 170-1.
1971
a. Mythologiques
Nu,Pion,Paris.
4: L'Homme
DerSpiegel,
denMenschen.
Interview.
b. DerHumanismus
Bedroht
53,pp.93-7.
enVhonneur
in Science
etConscience
dela Socit.
lesMythes,
c. Comment
Meurent
Mlanges
Paris.AlsoinEsprit,
Vol.1,pp.131-143.
deRaymond
Aron,
39(402),1971,
Calmann-Lvy,
pp.694-706.
d. Le Tempsdu Mythe,
Annales,
May-August,
pp.533-40.
oftheCrane,inP. andE. K. Maranda
e. TheDeduction
ofOral
(eds.)TheStructural
Analysis
U.P.
Tradition,
Pennsylvania
Vol. 11,No. 2,pp.5-14.
f. BolrodeM. Ravel,VHomme,
Ann.deVEPHE(1971-2).
g. CompteRendud'Enseignement,
Annuaire
duCollge
deFrance,
h. Rsum
pp.277-284.
inT. O. Beidelman
dePeuples
de Symtrie
entre
RitesetMythes
Voisins,
(ed.)
j. Rapports
inHonour
ofE. E. Evans-Pritchard,
TheTranslation
London,
Tavistock,
, Essays
ofCulture
pp.161-178.
k. RaceandCulture,
ISSf,Vol.xxiii,No. 4,pp.608-625.
VExpress,
1. L'Express
Va PlusLoinavecLvi-Strauss,
15-21mars,
pp.60-66.
WNBC TV, Speaking
m. Interview
withEdwinNewman,
12/9/71,
pp.1-23.
Freely,
1972
Vol.12,No. 4,pp.97-102.
a. Various
VHomme,
Reviews,
withClaudeLvi-Strauss,
b. Interview
May,pp. 37,39,74,78-80,82.
Today,
Psychology
ofinterview
inPsychologie).
version
(English
Ann.deVEPHE(1972-3).
c. Compte
deFrance,
duCollge
d. Rsum
desCoursetTravaux(1971-2),Annuaire
pp.329-49.
etSocit,
in Langues,
Nature
e. La MredesFougres,
J.Barranetal. (eds.),
Techniques,
Klincksieck,
Paris,
pp.367-9.
fromDiacritics
ofourPride.Interview
f. The Tempering
University),
(Cornell
excerpted
21/1/72.
NewYorkTimes,
LEVI-STRAUSS*
S STRUCTURALISM
439
1973
withNouvelle
a. Interview
, n.s.61,pp.27-36.
Critique
toAshes
b. From
, translated
byJ.andD. Weightman,
Honey
Cape,London.
andEcology,
SocialSciences
c. Structuralism
Lecture
, xii-i,pp.7-23.(Gildersleeve
Information
at Barnard
in Barnard
Alumnae
,
College,New York,March28th,1972.Firstpublished
1972).
Spring,
VHomme,
surl'AtomdeParent,
d. Rflexions
xiii,3,pp.5-29.
Structurale
Deux, Pion,Paris.(Contains
e. Anthropologie
1952a(corrected
1956h,
version),
1960a(adaptation),
1958h,
1960i,1960g,
1960h,
1960m,
I962d,1963c,
1964F,
1965c,
I965d,
1966m,
1965e,1965m,
I966n,1967e,1968c,1970a,197IC,I97ij,1973d).
ofORTF broadcast),
enJeu, 12,
f. Contribution
to Musiques
Musique
enjeu (transcription
pp.101-9.
trans.),
g. Tristes
Tropiques
(J.andD. Weightman
Cape,London.
1974
a. Various
Reviews,
L'Homme,
xiv,3-4,pp.161-2.
dansla sance
b. Discours
tenueparl'Acadmie
franaise
prononcs
pourla reception
publique
deM. ClaudeLvi-Strauss
Paris.(English
TLS
le27Juin1974.Insitut
deFrance,
summary
12/7/74).
1975
ofan article
forthe
a. Anthropology,
version
, 90,pp. 1-25(Abridged
prepared
Diogenes
Italiana).
Enciclopedia
2 Vols.Skira,Geneva.
b. La VoiedesMasques.
VHomme
XV (3-4)
c. (withM. AugetM. Godelier).
Histoire,
Antropologie,
Idologie.
pp.177-189.
surl'enfant
RevuedesDeuxMondes.
d. 'Proposretardataires
Nouvelle
crateur',
Janv.
inHonour
inExplorations
intheAnthropology
e. Histoire
d'unestructure,
of
ofReligion.
Essays
JanVanBaal.TheHague,M. Nijhoff.
1976
VHomme
xvi(2-3).
a. Structuralisme
etempirisme,
b. TheAcquisitive
TLS 26/11/76,
Society.
p. 1475.
surla libert.
Nouvelle
RevuedesDeuxMondes
c. Rflexions
, nov.1976.
R.Jakobson,
Le Sonetlesens
Ed.du Seuil.
d. Prface
, Paris,
Bastide.
Roger
et schizophrnie,
inL'Autre
etVailleurs.
e. Cosmopolitisme
Paris,
Hommage
vrault.
Berger-Le
f. AnIdyllamongtheIndians.
6.
TLS,August
1977
a. LesDessousd'unmasque.
VHomme
XVII (1)
b. Rponse
Edmund
Leach.VHomme
XVII (2-3)
deClaude
etRponse
deRception
d'Alain
l'Acadmie
c. Discours
Lvi-Strauss,
franaise
Peyrefitte
Gallimard.
Paris,
in
ofEssex.He isa lecturer
Notes.
SimonClarketookhisPh.D at theUniversity
Biographical
ofSociology
attheUniversity
ofWarwick.
theDepartment

The Origins of Levi-Strauss's Structuralism

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Origins of Levi-Strauss's Structuralism

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE ORIGINS OF LEVI-STRAUSS'S STRUCTURALISM

Author(s): Simon Clarke

but ratherdevelopsout of theattemptto mouldtheDurkheimian

appropriatefor radicalliberalismin the inter-warperiod,and so Lvi-Strauss

Such a philosophyof the progressiveand continuousdevelopmentof consabsurdto theyoungradical

providedthemeansofgivinghistorya new meaning,notbasedon thecontinuous

it is by theobjectivemethodsof naturalsciencethatknowledgeof man is to be

emotion.Later,in New York,Lvi-Strauss

To Lvi-Straussin the 1930s the Durkheimianpositionmusthave seemed

'to transposea certainarrangement

In the 1950 Introductionto Mauss's Sociologieet Anthropologie

65. FS,p. 518.

S-ar putea să vă placă și