HANDOUT ON SAUSSURE, LEVI-STRAUSS, AND STRUCTURALISM

What's here?

• Reading assignments for this session
  
• Background information--and encouraging words
  
• Study questions on these readings
  
• Key terms for the reading from Levi-Strauss
  
• What next?--suggestions about where to go from here

Assignment for next time

• Ferdinand de Saussure, from Course in General Linguistics, in Critical Theory Since 1965, ed. Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle (Tallahassee: U of Florida P, 1986): 645-57. (on reserve)
  

• Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Structural Study of Myth,"in Critical Theory Since 1965: 808-22. (on reserve)
  

• Tzvetan Todorov, "Structural Analysis of Narrative," in Contemporary Literary Criticism, ed. Robert Con Davis (New York: Longman). (on reserve as photocopy)
  

Some background information --and a few encouraging words

In dealing with Saussure, who is commonly described as the "father" of structural linguistics, it's important to recall the commonsense view of language, which holds that words (like "cat") name or refer to things (like domesticated felines). On such a view of language, then, there's a direct, one-to-one relationship between words (which dwell within language) and things (which dwell outside language). Ask yourself why Saussure is unwilling to accept this view. Figure out how he demonstrates its flaws or shortcomings, and be ready to explain what he proposes to put in its place.

As for Levi-Strauss, who may be the most difficult of the three writers we're studying, it's important to understand the myths he's analyzing. For a brief summary of the Oedipus myth, see the entry on Oedipus Rex in Masterplots. For the Zuni emergence or origin myth, see David Adams Leeming, A Dictionary of Creation Myths. Both of these works are available in the reference section at the Mudd.

Rest assured, though, that I don't expect you to follow every single detail of Levi-Strauss's arguments. I'd just like you to focus on his generalizations, which are should be more than tricky enough for our purposes. Why does he think that his method "eliminates a problem which has . . . been one of the main obstacles to the progress of mythological studies" (815)? What kinds of "logical processes" does he think are "at the root of mythical thought" (818)? And what does he think he can gain by asserting that every myth corresponds to a mathematical formula (821)?

With Todorov, the same sort of thing holds true. I am less concerned with Todorov's eight "explanations" (see 327-8) than with his larger statements about his intentions and aims. What does he mean, for example, when he says that he's "theoretical" rather than "descriptive" (324) or internal rather than external (324)? What does he mean when he says that his "principal goal" is a "discussion of methodology" (329)?

Further questions on specific readings

1. Here are four of Saussure's aphorisms:

a. "The linguistic unit is a double entity." (646)
b. "The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary." (647)
c. "By himself, the individual is incapable of fixing a single value." (649)
d. "In language there are only differences." (652)

What does he mean by each of these things? And how are his points illustrated and developed? Why, for example, is he so concerned with money? How does thinking about money help us to see, for example, that "in language there are only differences"?

2. Levi-Strauss explains that the "purpose of a myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction" (821). What exactly does he mean by that, and how is his point illustrated by his discussion of the Oedipus or the Zuni origin myths?

3. Todorov speaks about "virtualities" (329), suggesting that they are the focus of the structuralist critic's attention. What is a "virtuality," and why would any kind of critic choose to work with one?

General questions about all three readings

1. Structuralism, the movement that grows out of Saussure's linguistics, has frequently been described as anti-humanistic. Can you see why? What traditional humanist (or if you prefer, liberal humanist) ideas or values might appear to be threatened by a movement like structuralism?

2. What does Levi-Strauss borrow from Saussure? And what does Todorov borrow from Levi-Strauss? Is there anything of Saussure that Levi-Strauss leaves behind? And is there anything of Levi-Strauss that Todorov leaves behind? (NOTE: Saussure's Course was published in 1915; Levi-Strauss published "Structural Study of Myth" in 1955; and Todorov published "Structural Analysis" in 1969.)

3. What, finally, do you make of the structuralists' attitude towards science? Are they just suffering from science envy? In the end, are they just pathetic wannabes? What do you think is gained and lost when linguists or anthropologists or students of literature attempt to become more scientific?

One last thing: key terms in Levi-Strauss

"langue" and "parole" (811):

These terms were coined by Saussure himself. "Langue" is a language system, a set of options or possibilities, whereas "parole" is a particular utterance or statement. Saussure, as a linguist, cares more for "langue" than "parole": he wants to discover and then to determine the set of rules or conventions that govern the production of particular utterances.

"diachronic" and "synchronic" (812):

A diachronic relationship is temporal; it's the relationship a word or phrase or event might have with words or phrases or events that come before or after it. By contrast, a synchronic relationship has nothing to do with time or sequence; it's the relationship that a word or phrase or event might have with all other words, phrases, or events in a language or a narrative. Diachronic relationships are often described as horizontal, and synchronic relationships as vertical. To see why, you might think of the horizontal and vertical columns in Levi-Strauss's account of the Oedipus myth. If you read horizontally, skipping the fourth column, you are focusing on diachronic relationships--that is, on temporal relationships: first Cadmos seeks his sister, then he kills the dragon, then the Spartoi kill one another, and so on. Now, if you read vertically, you are beginning to move towards the synchronic. See why? You're no longer concerned simply with events that directly precede or succeed each other, but rather with events that may be distant from each other in time.

"chthonian" and "autochthonian" (814):

These terms are crucial to Levi-Strauss's analysis of the Oedipus myth. Something is "chthonian" if it lives in the ground; it's "autochthonian" if it springs up out of the ground or is somehow born from the ground.

Sources for these definitions:

Wilfred L. Guerin, A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. Third edition. Oxford: OUP, 1992.
Ross C. Murfin, Heart of Darkness. By Joseph Conrad. Second edition. New York: Bedford, 1996.

What next?

• Homepage for English 60A
  
• Syllabus for weeks one and two (Precursors: Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Saussure)
  
• Links to lectures by Mary Klages of the University of Colorado on Saussure and Levi-Strauss.