Goldsmiths Anthropology Department

Cover Sheet

Student Number 33145855

College Email An802cj@gold.ac.uk
Degree Programme MA in Anthropology of Health and the body

in the 21st century

Year of Course 2008-2010
Course code and AN71014A Anthropological Theory and
name Methodology
Essay Deadline 21/11/08
Submission Date 19/11/08
Are you dyslexic? No

Essay or Assignment Title

(type in grey box below)

   Is Structuralism guilty of the charge of mentalism? Should it

receive the death penalty?   

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is an attempt (deliberate or inadvertent) to gain advantage by the

representation of another person's work, without acknowledgement of the
source, as the student's own for the purposes of satisfying formal assessment
requirements.

1
Recognised forms of plagiarism include

1. the use in a student's own work of more than a single phrase from another person's
work without the use of quotation marks and acknowledgement of the source;
2. the summarising of another person's work by simply changing a few works or altering
the order of presentation, without acknowledgement;
3. the use of ideas or intellectual data of another person without acknowledgement of
the source, or the submission or presentation of work as if it were the student's own,
which are substantially the ideas or intellectual data of another person;
4. copying the work of another person;
5. the submission of work, as if it were the student's own, which has been obtained from
the internet or any other form of information technology;
6. the submission of coursework making significant use of unattributed digital images
such as graphs, tables, photographs, etc. taken from books/articles, the internet or
from the work of another person;
7. the submission of a piece of work which has previously been assessed for a different
award or module or at a different institution as if it were new work;
8. a student who allows or is involved in allowing, either knowingly or unknowingly,
another student to copy another's work including physical or digital images would be
deemed to be guilty of plagiarism.
9. If plagiarism is suspected students will be required to supply an electronic copy of the
work in question so that it may be subjected to electronic plagiarism detection testing.
Therefore students are required to keep work electronically until after they receive
their results as electronic detection may be part of the investigative process.

In submitting this work I confirm I have read and understood

the regulations relating to plagiarism and academic
misconduct that I signed when I submitted my assessment
confirmation form (ACF).

This essay will discuss the proposition that structuralism is

concerned with mapping the mental structures of man and that it

seeks to bring forth universal rules that lay behind the diversity of

2
cultural expressions; that these rules and structures are held within

a collective unconscious, and the structural anthropologist’s role is

to translate them into a decoded form.

The influence of sociological and linguistic theories will be explored

to illustrate how scientific methods are applied to ethnographic

studies. Historical positioning will demonstrate that Claude Levi-

Strauss has been the main exponent of structuralist theories within

a French intellectual tradition; criticisms of structuralism by other

anthropologists will be discussed and Levi-Strauss’ personal and

philosophical vision explored.

This essay concludes that far from deserving the death sentence,

structuralism has influenced anthropological thinking and is

acknowledged as a major turning point in the anthropological

exploration and study of man in a way that remains relevant today.

Structuralism was at it most influential in the 1950s and 60s; it has

been used in connection to literature, linguistics, psychology and

anthropology, but can also be found mentioned in the context of

architecture, geography and mathematics. The etymology of the

word denotes the link to construction as an action of building and

fitting together (Latin: structura/structus) but more enlightening is

3
the definition of structuring “the systematic and meaningful

interrelationships of parts within a totality” (Concise Oxford 1984).

This essay’s interest lay in anthropological structuralism and in the

relationships of the cultural and natural parts of man in this

context.

In the early 1900s, Emile Durkheim developed his social theories

in France in a political and intellectual environment of anti

clericalism, republican colonialism and authoritarian conformism.

In this moral battleground the individual was seen as subservient

to the society. Structuralists held the concept that society existed

autonomously from the individual and would continue existing

through a collective consciousness after individuals had died.

Durkheim’s work on religion explored how the roles of symbols and

signs, as collective representations, are shared by a society as a

system that unifies and bonds.

Durkheim’s theories of intellectual and rational explanations of

society influenced Levi-Strauss in viewing culture and society as a

whole but influenced by Freud, he transferred the concept of the

collective representations from the conscious to the unconscious

(Clarke 1981 and Shalvey 1981).

Mauss continued Durkheim’s work with a similar vision of society

as a “social organism” and developed the theory of reciprocity in

4
“the gift” (Mauss 1954). Here he explained that the object given as

gift did not matter, and that the underlying purpose of giving was

the expectation of returning. This socially binding activity of giving,

receiving and returning is seen as central to society. Levi-Strauss

further developed this concept in his work on kinship which led to

his alliance theory.

It is important to note that while Levi-Strauss was influenced by

both Durkheim and Mauss, his enquiry started from a different

angle. His purpose was to understand the mind and its mental

structures from the social and cultural representations as shown in

the following kinship ethnological examples.

Levi-Strauss describes first hand observations in the Amazonian

region of Moto Grosso of an exchange ceremony between two

tribes that were “ill disposed” towards each other. The proceedings

become increasingly intense, from speech interpellations, attempts

to grab an opponents bow and arrow and “pull off the tuft of buriti

straw attached to the front of the belt above the genitals. […]The

action is purely symbolical, because the genital covering of the

male is made of such flimsy material and is so unsubstantial that it

neither affords protection nor conceals the organs” (Levi-Strauss

1955: 358). Levi-Strauss observes that this phase of conflict is

followed by a phase of exchange, “strife is replaced by barter”

5
(Levi-Strauss 1955: 358). From his observations of the

Nambikwara, Levi-Strauss links exchange or trade with power,

exploring specifically the role of the chiefs within these tribes. The

leader’s relationship with his tribe is one of reciprocity, he provides

knowledge of hunting grounds, of hostile or friendly neighbouring

groups and in returns he is given privileges such as being allowed

several wives. “…the group exchanges the individual elements of

security guaranteed by the rule of monogamy for collective

security, which they expect to be ensured by the leader” (Levi-

Strauss 1955: 375.)

This deduction shows how Levi-Strauss explains man’s action

through mental structures and leads him to conclude “I had been

looking for a society reduced to its simplest expression. That of the

Nambikwara was so truly simple that all I could find in it was

individual human beings” (Levi-Strauss 1955: 377) declaring thus

his findings universally valid, placed in the unconscious and devoid

of any cultural interference.

Levi-Strauss developed the concept of exchange further, studying

the prohibition of incest in The Elementary structures of Kinship

(Levis-Strauss 1949). He proposed that this was the first cultural

rule in man’s mental structures, the transition from the natural to

the cultural. Levi-Strauss’s theory of reciprocity, intellectually

6
deducted rather than observed, has influenced and generated

debates with followers of the descent theory of kinship, such as

structural functionalists.

Throughout his work, Levi-Strauss refers to the importance of

language; man, language and society are intrinsically linked;

totemism is a code, a symbolic language; “myth is a language: to

be known, myth has to be told; it is part of human speech” (Levi-

Strauss 1977: 209). His meeting with Jacobson in New York during

the Second World War was influential in developing his vision of

mental structures in relation to understanding cultural man. In his

analysis of kinship, Levi-Strauss had integrated the linguistic

concept developed by Saussure, that phonemes were independent

units placed in structures. The structural linguists went further

taking the relationship between these units as being more

important than the units themselves, specifically their contrasting

relationships, their difference rather than their commonality.

Adapting this method, the structural anthropologist reads cultural

communication by re ordering autonomous pieces of a puzzle,

meaningless in themselves but forming a broader picture of an

ideal society. This full picture, of an underlying order, as with

language’s structure, is held in the unconscious, “a universal

grammar of the intellect” (Geertz 1967).

7
The following examples will not endeavour to present the structural

analytic method in its entirety nor draw ethnographic conclusions

from these “field “reports. Instead they will endeavour to

demonstrate that whilst applying this method universally brings a

potential cognitive order of the “whole”, it assumes a disregard to

some of the details contrary to the scientific approach stated by

Levi-Strauss.

In order to explore the relationship between myth and rituals, the

myth of the origin of the shamanistic powers is analysed in

Structural Anthropology (Levi-Strauss 1977). While classifying the

variants of the following myth from the Pawnee Indians of the

North American Plains, the theme of the pregnant boy is found to

be recurrent;

An ignorant boy becomes aware that he possesses magical

powers that enable him to cure the sick. Jealous of the boy’s

increasing reputation, an old medicine man of establishes

position visits him on several different occasions,

accompanies by his wife. Enraged because he obtains no

secret in exchange for his own teachings, the medicine man

offers the boy a pipe filled with magical herbs. Thus

bewitched, the boy discovers that he is pregnant. Full of

shame, he leaves his village and seeks death among wild

8
 animals. The animals, moved to pity by his misfortune,

decide to cure him. They extract the foetus from his body.

They teach him their magical powers, by means of which the

boy, on returning to his home, kills the evil medicine man and

becomes himself a famous and respected healer.” (Levi-

Strauss 1977: 234)

Levi-Strauss identified the following binary oppositions amongst

others: Initiated shaman/ non initiated shaman, Child / old man,

Confusions of the sexes/ differentiations of the sexes, Fertility of

the child/ sterility of the old man, magic through introduction/magic

through extraction.

This classification is the first stage of further oppositional analysis

between myth and rituals to test their relationship; “To what

Pawnee ritual does the myth of the pregnant boy correspond? On

first inspection none.” (Levi-Strauss 1977: 235) He pursues this

line of enquiry, broadening his search to neighbour tribes and

discovers the same binary oppositions but reversed and

concludes;

We could further pursue these comparisons, which would all

lead to the same conclusion, namely, that the Pawnee myth

reveals a ritual system which is the reverse, not of that

prevailing among the Pawnee, but of a system which they do

9
 not employ and which exits among related tribes whose ritual

organisation is exactly the opposite of that of the Pawnee.

(Levi-Strauss 1977: 237)

The puzzle analogy comes to mind again; the piece whose shape

does not fit where it seems to belong initially, through an

experimental and experiential way, is tried in a different part of the

overall picture.

Language in its written form is the focus of “a writing lesson” a

chapter in Tristes Tropiques (Levi-Strauss 1955). The Nambikwara

are described as having neither written language nor the

knowledge to draw, Levi-Strauss provided them with paper and

pencil, which eventually they used, drawing lines, mimicking his

own writing behaviour. Only the chief’s behaviour indicates an

understanding of the communicative possibilities of this activity

during the process of exchange of gifts with another group. From

this observation Levi-Strauss drew the following conclusions;

Writing had, on that occasion, made its appearance among

the Nambikwara but not as one might have imagined, as a

result of long and laborious training. It had been borrowed as

symbol, and for a sociological rather than an intellectual

purpose, while its reality remained unknown. […] A native

still living in the Stone Age had guessed that this great

10
 means towards understanding, even if he was unable to

understand it, could be made to serve other purposes. (Levi-

Strauss 1955: 352)

Levi-Strauss goes on to extrapolate from this a theory of writing

linking it with power relationships; “my hypothesis, if correct, would

oblige us to recognise the fact that that the primary function of

written communication is to facilitate slavery.” (Levi-Strauss 1955:

354)

These two examples show the range of Levi-Strauss’ reach for

uncovering meaning through the structural methods influenced by

linguistic. Is this “bricolage” as a structuralist method? Described

as working with second hand materials that are available and

assembled in a creative-like manner by Levi-Strauss (Wiseman

1997),“bricoleur” is often translated as DIY man, but may be seen

more in the sense of Jack of all trades. It brings a sense of

adaptability, creativity but has negative connotations as the

opposite to professionalism, the “cowboys” of the trade. We would

argue that in this lay the difficulties in this whole encompassing

approach; it potentially looses its scientific credibility as it

generalises its arguments to different sphere of human experience

and favours the intuitive and interpretative to the demonstrative

method.

11
Levi-Strauss’ intellectual roots are in philosophy, through his

training and the influence of Durkheim and Mauss, both

“philosophers in training and temperament” (Leavitt citing Lowie

1996). It is also evident through his writing, particularly Tristes

Tropiques, of his affinity with Rousseau, who he refers to as the

first of the French ethnologist.

Some of his strongest opponents have been philosophers, in

particular Sartre with his existential vision of “history organis(ing)

its data in relation to conscious expressions of social life while

anthropology proceeds by examining its unconscious foundations.”

(Levi-Strauss 1977: 18) In the 60s the two individuals were

represented as opposite ends of the French intellectual life, with

Sartre’s omnipresent engagement in political life (Algerian war,

May 68) and the self effacing academic and scientist Levi-Strauss

( College de France, Academy Française).

Just as the concept of history has been in the centre of Marxist

criticism of the structural theories (Pace 1983, Clarke 1981) so has

the relativist paradigm that denies the possibility of comparing the

modes of production cross-culturally. The structural anthropologist

“subconsciously aware that the future of their class was becoming

bleak, twentieth century bourgeois intellectuals have sought to

mystify the process of evolution in order to hide from themselves

12
and from other classes the fact that the forces of history are

moving against them.” (Pace citing Robinson 1983: 96).

Other critics, while recognising the ambition of the work by Levi-

Strauss, were critical of its scope and the validity of its scientific

claims;

His writings display an increasing tendency to assert a

dogma that his discoveries relate to the fact which are

universal characteristic of the unconscious process of human

thought.[…]the whole system seems to have developed into

a self fulfilling prophecy which is incapable of test, because

by definition, it can not be disproved. (Leach 1970: 131)

Geertz (1967) was also questioning this aspect of the “infernal

cultural machine” that Levi-Strauss had created; “that (he) should

have been able to transmute the romantic passion of Tristes

Tropiques into the hyper-modern intellectualism of La Pensee

Sauvage is surely a startling achievement. But there remain the

question one cannot help but ask. Is this transmutation science or

alchemy?” (Geertz 1967: 32)

This essay explored the theoretical contexts in which Levi-Strauss

developed structural anthropology as a method to interpret

ethnographic studies; examples endeavoured to show his main

13
concern was to highlight the rules, the structures that are common

and constant in all humanity despite cultural differences within a

collective unconscious. Therefore we would agree that the label of

mentalism is a valid description of this anthropological method and

that this has been one of the charges of its critics; but we would

disagree that it deserves the death sentence in recognition of its

achievement and the paths that it has laid for the future.

Structuralism has contributed positively to the continuous

development of anthropology. It brought relativism by bringing

synchronic methods to the overly evolutionary approach of his

previous generation (Morgan, Tylor). It promoted a universal

understanding, an openness to the “other” through theories of the

collective unconscious’ structures at a time in the 1940s and 1950s

where ethnocentrism and eugenic had been over influential

(getting older, Levi-Strauss, would not always hold such strong

views on ethnocentrism, see Geertz 1994).

Some of Levi-Strauss strongest critics were the first to recognise

his legacy; “he made anthropology an intellectual discipline. He

made it theoretical, intellectual, philosophical; (…) He got it out of

the craft mould.” (Geertz 1991)

We would also suggest that taking an all encompassing, holistic

approach to its extreme, Levi-Strauss caused the next generation

14
of anthropologist to move towards a more multi disciplinary path,

more than one Jack to cover the various trades necessary to

analyse a range of data.

This multi-disciplinary approach has been evident through the

kinship research by historians, sociologists and anthropologists

(Segalen 2001) but also in the development of anthropological

research in genetics. Commonalities between the mental

structures guiding man’s different cultural expression and the

genetic structure guiding the different forms of life have been noted

by Levi-Strauss himself; “what take place in our mind is something

not substantially or fundamentally different from the basic

phenomena of life itself.” (Wiseman 1997: 170) and further

developed by others such as Rindos (1986: 319), “his (Levy-

Strauss) model is one of pure and simple genetic determination of

the form and structure of human culture. The universal laws which

make up the unconscious activity of the mind (must) be described

as biological laws”.

Whilst further enquiries would be required to confirms such links

between structuralism and new genetics understanding of man, we

would argue that this connection to the genome, “the book of life”,

is convincing enough to plead that structuralism does not deserve

the death penalty but a sentence for life.

15
 Bibliography

Books
Barnard, A and Spencer, J (eds) (2002) “French anthropology”,
London, Routledge.

Borofsky, R (ed) (1994) “The uses of diversity”, New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Clarke, S. (1981). The foundations of structuralism, Brighton: The

Harvester Press Limited.

Franklin, S and McKinnon, S (Eds) (2001) “The shift in kinship

studies in France: the case of grand parenting, London: Duke
University Press

Leach, E (1989). Claude Levi-Strauss, university of Chicago Press.

Levi-Strauss, C (1969). The elementary structures of kinship,

London: Eyre and Spottiswood.

(1964). Totemism, London: Merlin.

.
(1974). Tristes Tropiques, New York: Penguins
Books.

(1977). Structural Anthropology, London:

Peregrine Books.

Mauss, M (1954). The Gift, Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.

Pace, D (1986). Claude Levi-Strauss; the bearer of ashes,

Reading: Ark Edition

Shalvey, T (1981). Claude Levi-Strauss social psychotherapy and

the collective unconscious, Brighton: The Harvester Press Limited.

16
Wiseman, B (1997). Levi-Strauss for beginners, Cambridge: Icon
Books.

Journal Articles
Geertz, C (1967) “The cerebral savage”, Encounter 28(4), 25-32

(1991) “interview”, Encounter 32(5), 607-609

Rindos, D (1986) “The evolution of the capacity for culture:

sociobiology, structuralism and cultural selectionism”, Current

Anthropology 27(4) 315-332

17
 Essay Self-Assessment and Feedback Form

Please give a rating of how well you feel you have met each of the assessment
criteria by putting an X in one of the three boxes below. 1=fully, 2=partially, 3=poorly.
Your tutor will make a similar assessment and give additional feedback below.

Have you addressed the question throughout the essay? 1 2 3

Your assessment x
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:

Does the essay have a clear and logical structure? 1 2 3

Your assessment X
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:
Have you demonstrated understanding of the main concepts 1 2 3
and/or theories?
Your assessment X
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:
Have you put forward a reasoned argument which shows 1 2 3
evaluation and analysis?
Your assessment X
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:

Critical use of ethnography and other evidence to support essay 1 2 3

answer
Your assessment X
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:

Presentation, bibliography, footnotes, and use of language 1 2 3

Your assessment X
Tutor's assessment
Tutor's comment:

Overall Comment: Grade:

18