The name Lévi-Strauss is not to be confused with a brand of jeans; it is also a brand of structuralism. The structuralist anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss was born in Belgium on 28 November 1908 to French parents. He undertook a law degree at the University of Paris, then taught sociology at the University of São Paulo in Brazil. He carried out sociological expeditions in Brazil in the 1930s, and these expeditions are what sparked his work on structural anthropology, although he was, in his own words, “a structuralist without knowing it” until 1942 when he started to read structural texts and realised there was an entire discipline that articulated his own thoughts and research methods. He is also influenced by Marx, and considers himself to be one of the few “purely structuralist thinkers”. He has applied structural theory to studies of myth, ritual and kinship.
Lévi-Strauss's contribution to structuralist thought is that he provides a scientific account which shows the world as a world of meanings; he believes that structuralism can be used to reveal the unity of all cultures. Two of his works are considered classic: Anthropologie structurale (1958) and the earlier Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949). The most frequently cited area of Lévi-Strauss's work is his study of mythology.
Lévi-Strauss is interested in the structural pattern which gives the myth its meaning. Through his examination of myths from all over the world, he has identified that myths are organised in binary oppositions (for example, good/evil) just like the basic linguistic units. Myths can be broken down into individual units (“mythemes”) which, like the basic sound units of language (“phonemes”) acquire meaning only when combined together in particular ways. Lévi-Strauss is then interested in the structural pattern which gives the myth its meaning. He believes this linguistic model will uncover the basic structure of the human mind, that is, the structure which governs the way human beings shape all their institutions, artefacts and their forms of knowledge. The rules which governed these combinations could be seen as a kind of grammar, a set of relations beneath the surface of the narrative which constituted the myth's true “meaning”. Further, modern structuralist analysis of narrative (known as narratology) began with Lévi-Strauss's pioneering work on myth.
Lévi-Strauss and his type of structuralism are no longer fashionable as a theoretical approach or method, and has since been taken over by post-structuralists such as Derrida. However, it is important to remember that Lévi-Strauss and his structuralism provided an important contribution for debating the nature of “meaning”.
The structuralist approach to myth[edit]Lévi-Strauss sees a basic paradox in the study of myth. On one hand, mythical stories are fantastic and unpredictable: the content of myth seems completely arbitrary. On the other hand, the myths of different cultures are surprisingly similar:
On the one hand it would seem that in the course of a myth anything is likely to happen. […] But on the other hand, this apparent arbitrariness is belied by the astounding similarity between myths collected in widely different regions. Therefore the problem: If the content of myth is contingent [i.e., arbitrary], how are we to explain the fact that myths throughout the world are so similar?[24]
Lévi-Strauss proposed that universal laws must govern mythical thought and resolve this seeming paradox, producing similar myths in different cultures. Each myth may seem unique, but he proposed it is just one particular instance of a universal law of human thought. In studying myth, Lévi-Strauss tries "to reduce apparently arbitrary data to some kind of order, and to attain a level at which a kind of necessity becomes apparent, underlying the illusions of liberty".[25]
According to Lévi-Strauss, "mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution".[26] In other words, myths consist of:
By uniting herbivore traits with traits of beasts of prey, the raven and coyote somewhat reconcile herbivores and beasts of prey: in other words, they mediate the opposition between herbivores and beasts of prey. As we have seen, this opposition ultimately is analogous to the opposition between life and death. Therefore, the raven and coyote ultimately mediate the opposition between life and death. This, Lévi-Strauss believes, explains why the coyote and raven have a contradictory personality when they appear as the mythical trickster:
The trickster is a mediator. Since his mediating function occupies a position halfway between two polar terms, he must retain something of that duality—namely an ambiguous and equivocal character.[27]
Because the raven and coyote reconcile profoundly opposed concepts (i.e., life and death), their own mythical personalities must reflect this duality or contradiction: in other words, they must have a contradictory, "tricky" personality.
This theory about the structure of myth helps support Lévi-Strauss's more basic theory about human thought. According to this more basic theory, universal laws govern all areas of human thought:
If it were possible to prove in this instance, too, that the apparent arbitrariness of the mind, its supposedly spontaneous flow of inspiration, and its seemingly uncontrolled inventiveness [are ruled by] laws operating at a deeper level […] if the human mind appears determined even in the realm of mythology, a fortiori it must also be determined in all its spheres of activity.[25]
Out of all the products of culture, myths seem the most fantastic and unpredictable. Therefore, Lévi-Strauss claims, if even mythical thought obeys universal laws, then all human thought must obey universal laws.
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/theory_history/..%5Ctheory_history%5Clevi-strauss.htm
Lévi-Strauss's contribution to structuralist thought is that he provides a scientific account which shows the world as a world of meanings; he believes that structuralism can be used to reveal the unity of all cultures. Two of his works are considered classic: Anthropologie structurale (1958) and the earlier Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949). The most frequently cited area of Lévi-Strauss's work is his study of mythology.
Lévi-Strauss is interested in the structural pattern which gives the myth its meaning. Through his examination of myths from all over the world, he has identified that myths are organised in binary oppositions (for example, good/evil) just like the basic linguistic units. Myths can be broken down into individual units (“mythemes”) which, like the basic sound units of language (“phonemes”) acquire meaning only when combined together in particular ways. Lévi-Strauss is then interested in the structural pattern which gives the myth its meaning. He believes this linguistic model will uncover the basic structure of the human mind, that is, the structure which governs the way human beings shape all their institutions, artefacts and their forms of knowledge. The rules which governed these combinations could be seen as a kind of grammar, a set of relations beneath the surface of the narrative which constituted the myth's true “meaning”. Further, modern structuralist analysis of narrative (known as narratology) began with Lévi-Strauss's pioneering work on myth.
Lévi-Strauss and his type of structuralism are no longer fashionable as a theoretical approach or method, and has since been taken over by post-structuralists such as Derrida. However, it is important to remember that Lévi-Strauss and his structuralism provided an important contribution for debating the nature of “meaning”.
The structuralist approach to myth[edit]Lévi-Strauss sees a basic paradox in the study of myth. On one hand, mythical stories are fantastic and unpredictable: the content of myth seems completely arbitrary. On the other hand, the myths of different cultures are surprisingly similar:
On the one hand it would seem that in the course of a myth anything is likely to happen. […] But on the other hand, this apparent arbitrariness is belied by the astounding similarity between myths collected in widely different regions. Therefore the problem: If the content of myth is contingent [i.e., arbitrary], how are we to explain the fact that myths throughout the world are so similar?[24]
Lévi-Strauss proposed that universal laws must govern mythical thought and resolve this seeming paradox, producing similar myths in different cultures. Each myth may seem unique, but he proposed it is just one particular instance of a universal law of human thought. In studying myth, Lévi-Strauss tries "to reduce apparently arbitrary data to some kind of order, and to attain a level at which a kind of necessity becomes apparent, underlying the illusions of liberty".[25]
According to Lévi-Strauss, "mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution".[26] In other words, myths consist of:
- elements that oppose or contradict each other and
- other elements that "mediate", or resolve, those oppositions.
- the trickster has a contradictory and unpredictable personality;
- the trickster is almost always a raven or a coyote.
By uniting herbivore traits with traits of beasts of prey, the raven and coyote somewhat reconcile herbivores and beasts of prey: in other words, they mediate the opposition between herbivores and beasts of prey. As we have seen, this opposition ultimately is analogous to the opposition between life and death. Therefore, the raven and coyote ultimately mediate the opposition between life and death. This, Lévi-Strauss believes, explains why the coyote and raven have a contradictory personality when they appear as the mythical trickster:
The trickster is a mediator. Since his mediating function occupies a position halfway between two polar terms, he must retain something of that duality—namely an ambiguous and equivocal character.[27]
Because the raven and coyote reconcile profoundly opposed concepts (i.e., life and death), their own mythical personalities must reflect this duality or contradiction: in other words, they must have a contradictory, "tricky" personality.
This theory about the structure of myth helps support Lévi-Strauss's more basic theory about human thought. According to this more basic theory, universal laws govern all areas of human thought:
If it were possible to prove in this instance, too, that the apparent arbitrariness of the mind, its supposedly spontaneous flow of inspiration, and its seemingly uncontrolled inventiveness [are ruled by] laws operating at a deeper level […] if the human mind appears determined even in the realm of mythology, a fortiori it must also be determined in all its spheres of activity.[25]
Out of all the products of culture, myths seem the most fantastic and unpredictable. Therefore, Lévi-Strauss claims, if even mythical thought obeys universal laws, then all human thought must obey universal laws.
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/academy/theory_history/..%5Ctheory_history%5Clevi-strauss.htm