{"id":123,"date":"2024-03-26T09:08:47","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T09:08:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/culturaltheory\/?post_type=content&p=123"},"modified":"2024-04-03T08:22:27","modified_gmt":"2024-04-03T08:22:27","slug":"chapter-6-structuralism-and-post-structuralism","status":"publish","type":"content","link":"https:\/\/staging.routledgelearning.com\/culturaltheory\/chapter-resources\/chapter-6-structuralism-and-post-structuralism\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 6 – Structuralism and post-structuralism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n\tHome<\/a>\n<\/span>\/<\/span>\n\tChapter Resources<\/a>\n<\/span>\/<\/span>\n\tChapter 6 \u2013 Structuralism and post-structuralism\n<\/span><\/div>\n\n

Chapter 6 – Structuralism and post-structuralism<\/h1>\n\n\n

Structuralism, unlike the other approaches discussed here, is, as Terry Eagleton (1983) points out, \u2018quite indifferent to the cultural value of its object: anything from War and Peace to The War Cry will do. The method is analytical, not evaluative\u2019 (96). Structuralism is a way of approaching texts and practices that is derived from the theoretical work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Its principal exponents are French: Louis Althusser in Marxist theory, Roland Barthes in literary and cultural studies, Michel Foucault in philosophy and history, Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis, Claude L\u00e9vi-Strauss in anthropology and Pierre Macherey in literary theory. Their work is often very different, and at times very difficult. What unites these authors is the influence of Saussure, and the use of a particular vocabulary drawn from his work. It is as well, then, to start our exploration with a consideration of his work in linguistics. This is best approached by examining a number of key concepts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n

Before you read <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Warm-up<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

We recommend this footage on Structuralism [link<\/a>] to help you get a grip on what is being discussed in Chapter 6. While watching it, think how Structuralism is outlined there, especially in relation to cultural practice (if at all).<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

Preliminary questions<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Chapter 3 established the importance of Culturalism in the study of Popular Culture. Two key figures, Hoggart and Williams, were seen to move Cultural Studies away from a Leavisite perspective. By the time Structuralists enter the frame, seeking to move Cultural Studies in quite another direction, Popular Culture as a worthwhile object of study had already been recognized. In focusing on signs, signifiers, referents, power and discourses, these theorists \u2013 and the Post-structuralists who came after \u2013 complicate meaning even further, seeing Culture and Popular Culture in terms of a system of signs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What do you think a sign<\/u><\/em><\/strong> may stand for in relation to culture, representation and meaning formation? (If possible, write down your ideas or discuss them with fellow students for further consideration).<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

After you read: Important ideas <\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Important ideas: <\/strong>Chapter 6 explains two key notions for cultural criticism (and understanding culture is general): that of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. Those notions map out specific approaches to culture and signification i.e. how meaning is being formed in a cultural context. Going through the following quizzes, test your understanding of this formation in relation to specific thinkers and ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Quiz 6.1<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Choose one answer<\/p>\n\n\n