Repository | Book | Chapter

Despite the impressive reception that structuralism has enjoyed so far, the fact remains that few "structuralist" thinkers rest easy with the name and fewer still venture more than an exemplarist account of their own innovative methods. Nonetheless, most writers who persist in using the name usually do acknowledge some degree of indebtedness to structural linguistics: specifically, to Saussure and the ensuing tradition. In the case of Lévi-Strauss' structuralism (perhaps the most "orthodox" variety), this debt is most apparent when he insists on maintaining the strict distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis. But if this initial distinction is one of the most important for Saussure, it ultimately proves to be one of the most disconcerting doctrines for Lévi-Strauss—disconcerting because, in fact, it is never respected. Even while he argues repeatedly and forcefully for the distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis, Lévi-Strauss systematically suppresses the diachronic axis. That such a suppression does take place, and that this can be strictly demonstrated across his various texts, will be our present concern.¹ Moreover, this procedure indicates a great deal about the metaphysical tenor of structuralism as such.

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-9698-4_4

Full citation: