Structuralism is a collective term for interdisciplinary methods and research programs that examine structures and relationships in the largely unconsciously functioning mechanisms of cultural symbol systems .
Structuralism asserts a logical priority of the whole over the parts and tries to grasp an internal connection of phenomena as structure.
Structures organize reality formally and without content; they are independent of the individual structured elements and concrete subjects. Structuralism is an intellectual current that had its high phase in the 1960s to 1970s and was sometimes criticized as a fad. There is no uniform structuralism, but only basic structuralist assumptions that become productive again and again in the various structuralisms and that are based on the system character of the structure : The structure determines the functionality of the parts in the composite of a whole .
Objects of investigation are not considered in isolation, since each individual object can only be individualized and viewed within an overall context and can be considered as being. The focus is therefore on the structure that makes the object status possible. An object is not explained by causal relationships, not by the history of ideas or other continuities , but by its contextual structure, in particular by opposing concepts that make a certain type of object determinable and that justify its reality in the first place.
For example, a word does not exist in substance as a sign that means something, but through opposing relationships with other elements of language; Instead of individual utterances, the structure of the language should be examined.
An object can only be understood by comparing it with other objects and considering its position within their mutual relationships. The structuralist method does not understand its objects as being in themselves, but as objects that exist in the first place because of their classification in structures. These structures are essentially shaped by the conventions of our access to the world. They explain how objects form and change.
Structural differences as a basic assumption
Language is the primary paradigm of structuralist research. Structuralism sees language as a system of signs as the basic type of every holistic organization of reality. According to some structuralists, there is no structure outside of what language is, be it esoteric or even non-verbal language. Gilles Deleuze writes in his essay What is Structuralism Recognized ?: “There is only a structure of the unconscious insofar as the unconscious speaks and is language. There is only a structure of the body insofar as the body is held to be speaking in a language which is that of the symptoms. "Deleuze therefore said:" Things themselves only have structure insofar as they hold a silent discourse which the language the sign is. ” Michel Foucault also pointed out the importance of language as the basic model of structuralism :
“The structuralists pose the problem of the formal conditions of the appearance of meaning, starting mainly from the model of language: language, which in itself is an extremely complex and rich subject of analysis, also serves as a model for the analysis of the appearances of others Meanings that are not actually of a linguistic nature. "
A distinction is made between language as a system ( langue ) and spoken language ( parole ). The watchword is the updating of the langue by individual speakers. The langue comprises a self-contained grammatical and phonetic system that is given to the speakers of the parole. This synchronously organized system is virtually available in every brain and structures the mass of verbal utterances. The langue is updated in the parole, but has no existence independent of it and is mostly unconscious to the speakers. Two other features of langue are the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign and the differential generation of its meaning. The linguistic sign consists of the signifier as a carrier of meaning and the signified as content. The difference between the contents creates the signified and the signified. The differential nature of meaning becomes clearest with the example of binary opposites such as woman / man, above / below and good / bad. The good only gains its meaning through the difference to the bad. Without evil, there would be no good either. Accordingly, a change in the meaning of evil inevitably redefines the meaning of good. In addition to the linguistic structure, there is also a deep structure of the culture . The cultural and social phenomena can be explained as models of a more comprehensive structure of differences along the lines of the langue. This includes, for example, texts of all kinds or social power relations . This can be illustrated using the example of the game of chess : The meaning of the individual chess pieces is only determined by their functional difference to the other pieces. Similar to chess pieces, we are only interested in individual things and events if they inform us about the relationships to other elements of the system and thus about the underlying system itself.
Structure as a property of systems
It is a basic thesis of structuralism that signs create meaning not through self-reference, but through the network of other signs. Therefore, meaning is never completely present, but always postponed. In addition, the structures are not stable and closed, but changeable and open. Ultimately, meaning is indefinite and flexible. Structures are understood as hidden properties of systems. They only become accessible to a scientist when he approaches the system with a suitable starting hypothesis. If structures are revealed in the process, it is not a question of properties of the object under investigation, but of properties of the theory of the object. These are used to describe the structural relationship of the elements:
- The structure is more than the elements that make it up (totality) .
- The elements are all interdependent. Every change in one element results in a change in the rest (interdependence) .
- The elements change according to certain rules (transformation) .
- This change regulates itself (self-regulation) .
- The structure retains its self-identity through all states that it can assume. In each of its states, it can be clearly differentiated from another structure (invariance) .
- The structure can be created with the help of a series of precisely defined operations (possibility of effective definition) .
Segmentation as a method
Structuralism is based on the basic assumption that phenomena do not occur in isolation but are related to other phenomena. Therefore, it is not the things themselves that are considered, but the relationships between things. The phenomena to be examined are usually very complex. Therefore, certain of its phenomena must first be excluded and partial aspects must be viewed in isolation. Their explanation is intended to promote insight into more complex relationships. The area of the observable is therefore divided into structurally describable and structurally non-describable facts. The phenomena that can be described are segmented. A relationship is reconstructed between the segments :
“The structural man takes what is given, breaks it down, puts it back together again; that is apparently little (and leads some people to claim that structuralist work is 'insignificant, uninteresting, useless', etc.). And yet, from another point of view, this little is crucial; for between the two objects, or between the two moments of structuralist activity, something new is formed, and this new is nothing less than the general intelligible: the simulacrum, that is the intellect added to the object, and this addition has an anthropological value in this respect, as he is man himself, his history, his situation, his freedom and the resistance that nature opposes to his spirit. [...] The structure is actually only a simulacrum (image, shadow image) of the object, but a targeted, 'interested' simulacrum, since the imitated object brings out something that is invisible in the natural object or, if you prefer want, remained incomprehensible. [...] Creation or reflection are not a true 'imprint' of the world here, but the real creation of a world that is similar to the first one, but does not want to copy it, but rather makes it understandable. [...] An art is not defined by the nature of the copied object (a stubborn prejudice of any realism), but by what man adds in reconstructing it: technology is the essence of all creation. [...] The object is reassembled in order to make functions appear, and that is, if one may say so, the way that the work produces; for this reason one should not speak of structuralist works, but of structuralist activity. "
Under certain circumstances, a further, more abstract description level on which the segments are based should be used, on which a segmentation of their units is again possible. In all cases, an attempt is made to capture the analyzed phenomena with a kind of "grid" ( synchronous and diachronic arrangement of their symbols) in which each element is determined by the characteristics, correlations and oppositions that can be derived from the relationship between the elements . The individual element must not be understood in itself but must be understood in its function in the entirety of the synchronous system. So things are presented in a structured and coherent system. Knowledge of the synchronous relationships precedes the observation of the diachronic process. It is not enough to consider the evolution of the functions of individual structures inherent in the system. In order to understand changes, the relationships of a system to all other systems of human activity must also be considered.
Ferdinand de Saussure
One of the founders of structuralism is the Geneva linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), who gave lectures on general linguistics at the beginning of the 20th century (Cours de linguistique générale), in which he created the basis for his new method. His lectures were only published posthumously in 1916. According to Saussure, the individual speech events (parole) through which the possibilities of the system (language) are realized in a variety of ways are based on a relational structure, the members of which are not substantially determined, but rather “in the validity and value of one only from the simultaneous presence of the other surrender. ”De Saussure understands language as a system of signs, that is, of in principle arbitrary connections between the signified (expression) and the signified (content). A sign is not the sensual incarnation of a pre-existing mental meaning. Signs alone generate meaning. Meaning does not arise through reference to objects or thoughts, but solely through the differences between the sign and other signs in the system. What is new at Saussure is the application of precise analysis methods, borrowing from those of the natural sciences, in a subject area such as linguistics. Many conceptions of the modern semiotic sub- disciplines have their origins here. De Saussure speaks of structure, however, only marginally and in a subordinate sense, and does not speak of structuralism at all.
Edward Bradford Titchener
An early representative of structuralism in psychology was Edward Bradford Titchener (1867–1927), a student of Wilhelm Wundt . He is counted to elementary structuralism as a representative of factor analysis in contrast to the more holistic gestalt psychology . He was the first to distinguish between structuralism and functionalism in American psychology. In accordance with Wundt's research approach, he set himself in opposition to the more Darwinian -style functionalism of William James , which was designed to preserve life and species , by also making thought contents the subject of research.
One of the most formative structuralists of the 20th century was Roman Ossipowitsch Jakobson , a main representative of the Prague School . He worked out structuralist theories of signs, language, communication and literature. According to Jakobson, structuralism means looking at phenomena as a structured whole and exposing the static or dynamic laws of the respective system. In doing so, he ties in with Edmund Husserl's phenomenology of language. Phenomenology functions as a fundamental consideration for structuralism. Every concept is a phenomenological determination. The judges are dependent on their point of view. The questions are subject-oriented. In order to be able to consider the object per se, it is necessary to exclude the inessential instead of accumulating existing knowledge and forming a synthesis . The difference in quality between the object and other objects should be taken into account.
"The overcoming of the static, the expulsion of the absolute, that is the essential pathos of the new time [...]."
Jakobson is against the fragmentation of knowledge and advocates a holistic approach. Under the impression of Charles Sanders Peirce, he emphasized the meaning of the terms iconicity (pictorial quality) and indexicality (context dependence) and differentiated between metaphor and metonymy . Jakobson recognized the basic binary structure of language, which works in all linguistic operations. According to Jakobson, purely arbitrary signs do not exist. All signs are motivated in some way. Synchrony and diachrony formed an inseparable dynamic unit.
“The juxtaposition of synchrony and diachrony was a juxtaposition of the concept of system and concept of evolution. It loses its fundamental weight if we recognize that every system necessarily exists as evolution and, on the other hand, evolution inevitably has the character of a system. "
With his ethnosociological studies, the French ethnologist Claude Lévi-Strauss has made important contributions to the structure of families , totemic clans and the myths of humanity. For Lévi-Strauss, social life is an exchange of signs and a reading of symbols. For him it is language in the broadest sense. In the case of sociological and linguistic studies, one is in full symbolism. It is the unconscious that creates the common and specific character of social conditions. The unconscious is responsible for symbolic thinking, it is a category of collective thinking. The vocabulary becomes meaningful for ourselves and for others only insofar as the unconscious organizes it according to its rules and turns it into a discourse. The vocabulary means less than the structure. The structure remains the same, and through it the symbolic function is realized. Lévi-Strauss regards culture as a connection between symbolic systems, at the top of which are language, rules of marriage, economic relations, art, science and religion.
“If, as we think, the unconscious activity of the mind consists in imposing forms on a content, and if these forms are basically the same for all spirits, the ancient and the modern, the primitive and the civilized [...] - like the investigation of the symbolic function as expressed in language proves convincingly - it is necessary and sufficient to find the unconscious structure which underlies every institution or every custom in order to get a principle of interaction that is useful for others Institutions and other customs is valid, provided, of course, that the analysis is carried out far enough. "
According to Lévi-Strauss, the myths of the different cultures are models of a wild way of thinking aimed at wholeness . It is not people who think in myths, but the myths think in terms of people without their knowledge. Regardless of their different content, the myths can be traced back to a comparatively small group of so-called mythems and their combinations. The mythems are the fundamental units of the myths, e.g. B. Hero kills dragons. The mythems gain their meaning not through their content, but through their relation to other mythems. Myth, poetry and literature are not creative creations, but the products of structural determination . Human reality itself produces structural models. The basic principle here is that the concept of social structure does not refer to empirical reality, but to the models constructed according to this reality. Just like scientific thinking, magical thinking is based on the basic assumption that the world of appearances is systemic and therefore subject to order and coherence . For the analysis of magical-totemic thinking, Lévi-Strauss uses the terms contiguity , similarity and opposition. Contiguity exists between two things that are close together and, figuratively, belong to the same system both structurally and functionally. In the case of similarity, it is not a condition that they belong to the same system, but that certain things have one or more characteristics in common. In this case, the relationship is established by the lowest common denominator. In the relationship of the opposition, on the other hand, ideas are assigned to one another that have no common denominator and are mutually exclusive. These are opposites such as sacred and profane, raw and cooked, celibacy and marriage, male and female, central and peripheral.
“Magical thinking is not a first attempt, a beginning, a sketch, part of a whole that has not yet been realized; it forms a precisely articulated system and is in this respect independent of the other system which science will later establish, apart from the formal analogy which brings them closer together and which makes the former a kind of metaphorical expression of the latter. So instead of treating magic and science as opposites, it would be better to put them in parallel than two types of knowledge that are unequal in terms of their theoretical and practical results, but not in terms of the nature of the mental processes that are the prerequisites of both and differ less in nature than in terms of the types of appearance to which they refer. "
In his 1962 published work Wilde Thinking , Lévi-Strauss distinguished between cold and hot societies . The distinction between peoples without history and the other is unfortunate and must be replaced. Cold societies try, by means of the institutions that they give themselves, to automatically cancel the effect that historical factors might have on their equilibrium and continuity. The hot societies resolutely interiorize historical becoming in order to make it the engine of their development.
Lucien Goldmann took an approach called genetic structuralism . He endeavored to work out certain principles of dialectical literary criticism and at the same time to inquire into the relationship between literary creation and social life. While for ontological structuralism the structure is a reality given to all individual thinking as a structuring regulative, Goldmann takes the view that the meaningful structure is first produced by the human mind in the course of the history of the human mind. In doing so, he attaches an important role to art and the creative artist. He regards the social group as the real subject of cultural creation. Feelings, inclinations and ideas developed within a social group. These arose from the respective economic and social situation and showed a common tendency. In the collective consciousness of a group, the elements of a worldview developed, which find their coherent expression in great artistic or philosophical works and whose structure corresponds to that towards which the totality of the group is striving. Goldmann assumes a homology between the structure of the works and the structure of the worldview of a group. Every sociology of intellectual life is based on the influence of social reality on literary creation. For the dialectical materialism advocated by Goldmann , this is a fundamental postulate. Dialectical materialism emphasizes the importance of economic factors and the relationships between social classes. However, there are numerous writers and philosophers who deny such influence. In their opinion, the connection with the contingent phenomena of social and economic life would devalue spiritual values. Some of these philosophers would be strengthened in this attitude by the desire to combat Marxism as a mainly political ideology which, in their opinion, seeks above all to satisfy the material needs of an uneducated mass of people who are not open to spiritual values. On the other hand, according to Goldmann, true spiritual values cannot be separated from economic and social life. On the contrary, they worked precisely within this life, trying to achieve the best possible human community for him. Goldmann describes history as a process of dismantling older structures and building newer overall structures. History is a process of restructuring with the utopian goal of finding a balance and balance between the forces of the historical process.
Genetic structuralism starts from the hypothesis that all human behavior is an attempt to give a meaningful answer to a particular situation, and that this behavior is the balance between the subject of the action and the object to which it relates, ie towards the surrounding world. This striving for equilibrium, however, always retains an unstable and provisional character, since any more or less satisfactory equilibrium between the mental structures of the subject and the environment leads to a state in which human behavior by itself changes the world and thereby the old , makes a once unsatisfactory balance appear inadequate and creates a tendency towards a new balance, which in turn must later be overcome. "
According to Goldmann, a structure in its most general form is present when the elements are connected in a totality which, as a totality, has certain peculiarities, and when the peculiarities of the elements depend entirely or partially on those of the totality. In contrast to ontological structuralism, Goldmann does not understand structure as an archetypal and ahistorical structure that manifests itself again and again in the various individual works. Rather, a structure is inner coherence and totality, the individual parts of which explain each other and can only be understood in terms of the overall structure. If the criteria of coherence and functionality of the parts are present as part of a whole, Goldmann speaks of a meaningful structure . These criteria are also the essential conditions of a structure. A meaningless structure is a contradiction in terms. The concept of meaningful structure represents both a reality and a norm. The concept of meaningful structure defines not only the real engine, but also the goal towards which the totality of human society strives . The hypothesis of a history that is dominated by the striving and tendencies towards an ever more comprehensive, meaningful and coherent structure is one of the most important positive hypotheses for the study of historical reality. For Goldmann, the social objective is a transparent final society that only consists of structures that guarantee sensible and humane behavior among individuals and towards society.
Structuralist methods were transferred to all kinds of cultural phenomena, including psychoanalysis. According to Jacques Lacan , the subject has its origin in the symbolic system. The unconscious is structured like a language and is produced by language. Lacan denies the unity of the cogito ergo sum , that the ego that thinks is identical with the ego that exists. Instead, he claims: “I am not where I think.” Lacan postulated a “supremacy of the signifier” and from this he developed the structure of the unconscious according to Sigmund Freud . According to Lacan, there is no predefined assignment of signifier and signified. Accordingly, there is no fixed meaning. However, the connections are not open to any meaning at will. Rather, they obeyed the rhetorical laws of metonymy (mot à mot) and metaphor (un mot pour un autre) . In this way they produce a “topic of the unconscious”: the metonymic structure indicates that the connection of the signified with the signified makes the omission (élision) possible, through which the signifier introduces the lack of being (manque de l'être) into the object relationship . This is how desire (désir) arises .
Gilles Deleuze no longer understands structure as a methodical instrument of scientific description and explanation. There is only structure of what language is; even if it is esoteric or non-verbal language. The places have priority over those that potentially fill them, the real subject is the structure. With Deleuze, the classic subject becomes more of a subjectivity effect of the structure. He has succinctly summarized structuralism in a synthesis based on seven criteria:
- The symbolic is the starting point. It serves to demarcate the imaginary and the real and is at the same time the origin and reason for being of the other two relations. It serves as the structure of a design that is composed of atomistic elements that simultaneously want to account for the formation of the whole and the modifications to its parts.
- The structure is topological and relational. The reality lying outside the structural construction itself remains excluded, as does the imaginary, which directly determines the symbolic itself. What remains is only one meaning that emerges from the position that the structural objects occupy in space and relationally. Structural thinking is based on the objects and the structural textures. At the same time, this involves a desubjectivation. The places are more important than the subjects that are specifically placed in them. Sense is created by combining elements in this room, whereby the elements themselves do not yet designate this sense.
- The elements of the structure are organized differentially. The differential and the special are emphasized. The symbolic elements determine each other as a system of differential relationships. They stand in a system of special features that take these relationships into account and symbolize the space of the structure. There are structures for all areas in which symbolic elements can be determined with a view to differential relationships and special points that are specific to them.
- Structures are a multiplicity of virtual coexistence. In these constructions, structures are in some ways ideal places. They are largely unconscious and virtual. The structure itself goes out to its updates. It differentiates itself temporally and spatially and produces itself in types and parts. The structures remain unconscious in this production because they are necessarily hidden by their products or effects. For example, an economic structure never exists in its pure form. It is obscured by the legal, political and ideological relationships in which it is embodied.
- The structure can only be updated partially and takes place in series, between which there is a shift. The moving and differentiated, related elements need the serial for their functionality. Only in the sequence, in the recurrence, do structures emerge that appear as a symbolic order. There is neither pure individuality nor pure collectivity, but only intersubjectivity that occurs in series. There is effect and interaction.
- For the sake of displacement, an empty field is postulated that is filled by an eminently symbolic and paradoxical subject that establishes the connection between the series. It has no fixed meaning, but rather shows an excess of meaning. The structures are viewed from within. The blind spots observed by observers are attributed to the structures themselves. That is why structures have empty fields, puzzle objects. These seem to drive the structure itself peculiarly. Or they just run through their series and circulate. A final construct, a final justification that situates the play of structures, remains symbolically empty. Because of the empty field, the differential relationships are susceptible to new values and changes.
- The classical subject has to subordinate itself to the places and relations. Deleuze states that there is a primary symbolic fulfillment before every secondary fulfillment or consumption by real beings. The classic subject is not killed or eliminated in the process. But it no longer appears as a whole, no longer as clearly situated and placed. It has different dependencies and shows its changeability.
There are also numerous other attempts to extend the structuralist method to all cultural studies disciplines: to linguistics, mythical discourses, anthropology or, for example, to literary studies by Jan Mukařovský ( Prague literary structuralism ), Tzvetan Todorov and Roland Barthes . Louis Althusser subjected Marx to an ahistorical, structuralist investigation. In the field of phonetics, structuralist methods were developed and applied very early on. The development of the phonetic transcription system of the IPA / API (International Phonetic Association / Association phonétique internationale) can be related to these beginnings. Culture-related structuralism had its heyday in the 1960s to 1970s. Structuralist methods continued to have an impact, especially in semiotics and literary theory . There are also some relationships to systems theory and psychoanalysis . Applications can be found a. in the social sciences and humanities , especially linguistics , epistemology , literary studies , psychology , sociology and anthropology through to architecture . Jakobson's later activity in the United States influenced Noam Chomsky's work on generative transformation grammar . The economic Strukturalismus based on the distinction between center and periphery as a basic structural characteristics of the world economy.
From the Marxist side , structuralism was criticized for its concentration on the synchronic system observation while neglecting historicity and evolutionary development. A critical examination of structuralism also brought philosophical currents that were later called post-structuralism . The discourse analysis of Michel Foucault is controversial in their relation to structuralism. Foucault himself has expressed himself critical of a simple assignment to structuralist schools. The deconstruction developed by Jacques Derrida also turns critically against essential theses of classical structuralism. Lévi-Strauss pointed out the problem of describing structuralism as a uniform concept:
“I also don't think that one can still speak of structuralism today. There were quite a number of directions that presented themselves as structuralist, and others that were externally described as structuralist, although in the opinion of their proponents they themselves were not. "
- Constructivism (philosophy)
- Regulation theory
- Philosophy of language
- Philosophy of science
- Gilles Deleuze : How do you recognize structuralism? Merve Verlag, Berlin 1992, ISBN 3-88396-092-6 unmodified reprint .
Jacques Derrida : De la grammatologie. Paris 1967, German translation Hans-Jörg Rheinberger, Hanns Zischler: Grammatology. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1983, ISBN 3-518-28017-1
Contains a presentation, criticism and continuation of classical structuralism - however, as a stand-alone essay, not suitable for introductory reading.
- Claude Lévi-Strauss : Structural Anthropology. Volume 1 (original title: Anthropologie structurale translated by Eva Moldenauer), 5th edition In: Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 226, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 1991, ISBN 3-518-27826-6 .
- Ferdinand de Saussure: Cours de linguistique générale. Geneva 1915; critical edition ed. Rudolf Engler, 2 vols., Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1967, 1974; German transl. Charles Bally: Basic questions of general linguistics. 2nd edition with a new register, De Gruyter, Berlin 1967.
- Secondary literature
- Johannes Angermüller: After structuralism. Theoretical discourse and intellectual field in France. Bielefeld 2007, ISBN 978-3-89942-810-0 .
- Niels Brügger, Orla Vigsø: Structuralism for beginners. Paderborn: UTB 2008, ISBN 3825231623 .
In almost 100 pages a first introduction to Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, Barthes and receptions.
- François Dosse: History of Structuralism. Two volumes, Junius, Hamburg 1997f., ISBN 3-88506-268-2 .
- Lothar Fietz: Structuralism . An introduction. 3rd edition, Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen 1998
- Manfred Frank : What is neo-structuralism? , Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp 1984, ISBN 3-518-11203-1
- Rainer Grübel: Formalism and Structuralism , in: Heinz Ludwig Arnold, Heinrich Detering (ed.): Fundamentals of literary studies . Munich: dtv 1996, 386-408
- Albrecht Jörn: European structuralism. An overview of the history of research , Tübingen: Francke 2000
- Gerhard Plumpe : Structuralism , article in: Joachim Ritter u. a. (Ed.): Historical dictionary of philosophy . Schwabe, Basel 1971 to 2007
- Michael Ryan: Structuralism and Poststructuralism , in: New Dictionary of the History of Ideas, Vol. 5 (2005), 2260-2264
- Günther Schiwy: The French structuralism , Munich (Beck), 1969, ISBN 3-499-55310-4
- François Wahl (ed.): Introduction to Structuralism , Frankfurt a. M .: Suhrkamp, 1973
- Helga Gallas (Ed.): Structuralism as an interpretative method . Hermann Luchterhand Verlag, Darmstadt and Neuwied 1972 ( collection alternative , edited by Hildegard Brenner. Vol. 2) (= Luchterhand collection 35)
- Article Structuralism (David Holcroft), Structuralism in linguistics (ders.), Structuralism in literary theory (Joseph Margolis), Structuralism in social science (Theodore R. Schatzki), in: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Peter Caws: Structuralism in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas
- Literary theory / methods of text work : In: Mythos-Magazin. Retrieved on March 11, 2014. (Lecture reader winter semester 2011/12 as PDF file)
- Gerhard Plumpe, Structuralism , article in: Historical Dictionary of Philosophy, Vol. 10, p. 342 ff .; Jörg Stadlinger, Structuralism , Article in: European Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Sciences, Vol. 4, p. 466 ff.
- Hans-Dieter Gondek: Structuralism. Article in: Hans Jörg Sandkühler (Ed.): Enzyklopädie Philosophie , Vol. 2, Hamburg 1999, p. 1542.
- Urs Josef Viktor Jaegi, Order and Chaos. Structuralism as method and fashion , Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. 1968; Günther Schiwy, The French Structuralism , 1969, p. 9 f., Who, in one of the first presentations of structuralism in the German-speaking area, suggested the distinction between structuralism as fashion, method and ideology.
- See Lothar Fietz, Structuralism , p. 178
- See above: David Holcroft: Structuralism . In: Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- Gerhard Plumpe, Structuralism , article in: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Vol. 10, p. 347, characterizes structuralism in this sense in that it constructs its “theoretical objects as structured systems and examines them for their formation and transformation rules. “Plumpe refers to Ernst Cassirer : Structuralism in modern linguistics , in: N. N. (1945): Word 1/2 . o. V., o. O., p. 99 ff.
- Cf. Gerhard Plumpe, Structuralism , article in: Historical Dictionary of Philosophy, Vol. 10, p. 342
- Gilles Deleuze, What can one recognize structuralism , Berlin 1992, p. 8
- Michel Foucault, On the Subversion of Knowledge , Frankfurt a. M. 1978, p. 9
- Basically Ferdinand de Saussure: Basic questions of general linguistics . 2nd edition, Berlin 1967.
- S. Saumjan, Strukturale Linguistics , Munich 1971, p 38 ff; JP Corneille, La linguistique structurale , Paris 1976, pp. 225 f.
- For a summary see J. Albrecht, European Structuralism , 2nd ed., Tübingen 2000, p. 226 f.
- Roland Barthes: The structuralist activity. In: Kursbuch 5, 1966, p. 191 ff.
- Ferdinand de Saussure: Basic questions of general linguistics . Berlin 1967, p. 136.
- d. H. drawing science
- Arnold, Wilhelm et al. (Ed.): Lexicon of Psychology . Bechtermünz, Augsburg 1996, ISBN 3-86047-508-8 ; Column 2236
- Hofstätter, Peter R. (Ed.): Psychology . The Fischer Lexicon, Fischer-Taschenbuch, Frankfurt a. M. 1972, ISBN 3-436-01159-2 ; Page 72
- Roman Jakobson, Semiotics. Selected texts 1919–1982, 1988, p. 44
- Jurij Tynjanov and Roman Jakobson, Problems of Literature and Language Research, in: Texts of the Russian Formalists, Vol. II, ed. by Wolf-Dieter Stempel, Munich 1972, p. 389
- Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology , Frankfurt 1967, p. 224
- Lévi-Strauss, Introduction to the work of Marcel Mauss , Frankfurt 1978, p. 15
- Lévi-Strauss, Mythologica I-IV , Frankfurt 1976, p. 35
- Lévi-Strauss, Mythologica I-IV , Frankfurt 1976, p. 26
- Claude Lévi-Strauss: Structural Anthropology . Vol. 1, Frankfurt am Main 1967, p. 301.
- Lévi-Strauss, Das wilde Denk (1962), Frankfurt 1979, p. 79
- Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (1958), Frankfurt 1971, p. 153
- Lévi-Strauss, Das wilde Denk (1962), Frankfurt 1979, p. 25
- Lévi-Strauss, Das wilde Denk (1962), Frankfurt 1979, p. 270 f.
- Lucien Goldmann, Sociology of the Romans (1964), 1970, p. 238
- Lucien Goldmann, Sociology of the Romans (1964), 1970, p. 235
- Lucien Goldmann, Dialektischer Materialismus und Literaturgeschichte , in: Dialektischeverbindungen, 1966, p. 55
- Lucien Goldmann, The concept of meaningful structure in the cultural history , in: Dialektischeverbindungen, 1966, p. 125
- Jacques Lacan: The four basic concepts of psychoanalysis . Weinheim-Berlin 1987, chap. XVI.
- Lacan, Ecrits (Paris 1966) 20; German: Schr. (1973-80) 1, 19
- Lacan, Ecrits (Paris 1966) 30; German: Schr. (1973-80) 1, 29
- Cf. Claus von Borman, Signifiant / signifié , article in: Historical Dictionary of Philosophy, Vol. 9, p. 757
- Deleuze, difference and repetition , Munich 1992, p. 270
- Deleuze, How can one recognize structuralism , in: F. Châtelet, History of Philosophy Bd. 8, Frankfurt a. M. 1975
- Elmar Holenstein, Roman Jakobson's phenomenological structuralism , Frankfurt a. M. 1975, p. 20 f.
- Jose Gabriel Palma: "Structuralism". In: Amitava Krishna Dutt, Jaime Ros: "International handbook of development economics." Volume 1. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008, pp. 136f.
- See Hubert Dreyfuß, Paul Rabinow: Michel Foucault. Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics . Athenaeum, Frankfurt 1987. An example of this rejection can be found in the foreword to the German edition of the Order of Things by Michel Foucault, 1974, p. 15: “In France, certain half-witted“ commentators ”insist on labeling me as a“ structuralist ” . I couldn't get it into their tiny heads that I didn't use any of the methods, terms, or keywords that characterize structural analysis. "
- Lévi-Strauss, Intervista a cura di M. d'Eramo . Mondoperaio 32/2 (1979), 118-124, 118b-119 a; German: The structuralist activity . A conversation with M. d'Eramo, in: Mythos and Meaning (1980) 252–274, 253