Non-Classical Philosophy in The West

Problematic Domains of Leading Contemporary Philosophical Trends

Main Ideas of Structuralism

Structuralism finds its roots in the ideas of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), who developed a specialized method for studying language, viewing it as a system of signs. The emergence of structuralism beyond linguistics, and its application of structural methods in other humanities, was tied to the expansion of the concept of sign systems to a broad range of cultural phenomena, including religion, mythology, customs, art, fashion, advertising, and the material world. This trend culminated in the understanding of culture as a collection of sign systems. Gradually, structuralism gained the status of a philosophical movement, claiming to discover universal laws that operate independently of the conscious activity of the human spirit, which is the very product of culture. The dissemination of structural linguistics methods to other cultural spheres and the philosophical interpretation of this process first unfolded in France during the 1940s to 1960s. Therefore, when speaking of structuralism, one primarily refers to French structuralism.

In France, structuralism became fashionable through the work of philosopher and anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), who not only employed structural analysis methods for studying the cultures of primitive peoples but also initiated the search for their philosophical meanings. Other leading figures in structuralism include psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan (1901-1981), literary scholar Roland Barthes (1915-1980), and philosopher and cultural historian Michel Foucault (1926-1984). The latter two are now more frequently recognized as representatives of post-structuralism. However, as previously mentioned, the foundational tenets of structuralism are linked to the ideas of de Saussure.

De Saussure proposed the idea of creating a general science of signs, which he termed semiology. He argued that "linguistics is only a part of this general science: the laws that semiology will reveal will be applicable to both linguistics, which will thus be related to a well-defined sphere within the totality of human life." This position also implied the possibility of applying structural linguistics methods in the study of other sign systems.

De Saussure believed it was possible to establish a science of language but not a science of speech. Language and speech are two components of linguistic activity. Language represents the social aspect of this activity, consisting of the system of rules necessary for communication. It is constructed without the involvement of any individual and is taken in a ready-made form. Speech, on the other hand, is the purely individual component of linguistic activity, representing the realization of a subject's use of the rules and possible combinations of signs dictated by the language. The opposition between "language and speech" became one of de Saussure's central positions, which later began to be applied beyond linguistics.

Equally significant is de Saussure's assertion that language does not depend on thought; rather, it precedes any act of thinking. When an individual seeks to express an idea, they merely utilize a system of signs, the relationships between which are not controlled by consciousness. This lack of control of linguistic systemic relationships by human reason leads de Saussure to derive the arbitrariness of the link between the sign and the concept it represents. He emphasizes this fundamental characteristic insistently. For instance, one might observe a correspondence between a specific person and even a somewhat schematic pictorial representation of them; however, there is no similarity between the spoken word "man" and an actual man. The substrate nature of the sign is indifferent to its existence as a sign. The sign's acquisition of meaning is determined by its context, that is, by other signs. The assertion that the value of an element of language is relative and manifests only in opposition to another element characterizes not only language but any sign system. The task of the language researcher is to uncover its structure, that is, the set of relationships among elements. According to de Saussure, this structural recreation is achieved through the construction of binary oppositions. This approach would later become the most characteristic feature of structuralism.

The success of applying structural analysis methods inspired French philosopher and ethnographer Lévi-Strauss to transfer them to ethnology. In analyzing various phenomena of primitive tribal cultures, he posited that customs, rituals, forms of marriage, kinship systems, myths, and other social institutions possess an unconscious character, unrecognized by the members of those collectives who utilize these social establishments. Even in modern societies, individuals adhere to etiquette and numerous moral, political, and religious norms without pondering their origins and functions. The unconscious nature of social institutions relates them to language; however, unlike the latter, the former are subject to rationalization, that is, an attempt to establish a rational basis for existing customs. This secondary interpretation of social institutions misled ethnographers, who relied on explanations of customs, rituals, beliefs, and myths provided by the indigenous people. In examining marriage forms, kinship systems, totemism, rituals, and myths, Lévi-Strauss viewed them as specific languages, sign systems that facilitate the exchange of messages. Through conscious manipulations of signs, words, and images, the researcher seeks to reveal unconscious, deep structures and hidden mechanisms of sign systems. The focus is on studying the unconscious, while consciousness is regarded as a secondary, superficial phenomenon, a source of illusions that hinder objective investigation.

Roland Barthes and Jacques Lacan adapted the methodological tools of linguistic analysis for studying contemporary societies. Lacan employed linguistic analogies in his investigation of the human psyche, likening the structure of the unconscious to that of language. Barthes tailored the structural analysis method to the study of literature, systems of fashion, architecture, design, cuisine, and more. His ability to present them as sign systems was facilitated by the methods of connotative semiology, in the development of which he played a significant role.

In language, two planes can be distinguished: denotative and connotative. Connotative meanings are the secondary, accompanying senses of words. These hidden, connotative meanings may not be consciously recognized by the users of the signs; their perception depends on the breadth of the interpreter's erudition and the social circle engaged with the sign system. As Barthes demonstrated, one of the essential characteristics of connotative meanings is their ability to attach not only to signs of natural language but also to various material objects that serve practical functions. Everyday objects thus acquire the properties of signs and create specific coding systems, reflecting the social and economic status of individuals, their attitudes toward fashion, value systems, and more.

Michel Foucault transferred the tools of structural analysis to the field of the history of ideas. In his renowned work "The Order of Things," he examined the changes in the structures underpinning knowledge across three periods in European cultural history: the Renaissance (16th century), the Classical Age (17th-18th centuries), and Modernity (late 18th-20th centuries), using three sciences (biology, political economy, and linguistics) as examples. These structures, which he termed "epistemes," define the very possibility of certain ideas, theories, and sciences emerging during each historical period. The epistemes themselves are dictated by the dominant type of semiotic relationship or the relationship between "words" and "things" within the culture of a given period, thus establishing language as a foundational point in Foucault's analysis.

At the heart of the Renaissance episteme lies the approach to language as a thing among things. The word-symbol and the thing are identical: "Language constitutes a part of the grand distribution of similarities and attributes. Thus, it must be studied as a thing belonging to nature." Cultural phenomena that have found expression in sign form are interpreted based on the same principles as phenomena in nature, and vice versa. The classical episteme can be defined "as a system comprising mathematics, taxonomy, and genetic analysis... The table is a central element in the knowledge of the 17th and 18th centuries." Mathematics, taxonomy, and genetic analysis serve as means of ordering simple and complex objects and analyzing the formation of orders. In the classical episteme, language appears not as a thing among things but as a means of expressing thought. The word presents, above all, thought, not the thing itself. In the modern episteme, language and thought become separated; language becomes opaque, imposing its limitations on thought. The word-sign increasingly becomes self-referential, transforming from a transparent medium of thought into an autonomous force that becomes an object of knowledge. Each episteme serves as an unconscious foundation for science during a specific period in the history of European culture.