Faith and works
J. 0. URMSON
Structuralism: A Redder edited and intro- duced by Michael Lane (Cape 75s) It is clear that as language users we may speak rightly or wrongly; we may, or we may not, succeed in constructing an utter- ance which intelligibly conveys what we seek to convey. It is therefore reasonable to say that competent speakers are masters of a rule-governed activity. Further, meaning de- pends not only on content but also on struc- ture; 'John hit Tom' does not mean the same as 'Tom hit John.' Moreover similarity of meaning does not seem to follow from shared overt, surface structure; 'Tom hits a ball' is importantly different from Tom wants a ball', since the latter, but not the former, may be;sue when no ball is available.
But though we are masters of a rule- governed activity it does not follow that we can all state the rules; this is the task of grammarians. Modern structural linguists, like Chomsky, by developing transforma- tional grammars, seek to display the rules of language by showing how the surface- structure of permissible sentences of a language may be generated from a postu- lated set of deep-structural elements.
The founding-father of structural linguis- tics was Ferdinand de Saussure. But it was Claude Levi-Strauss who had the idea that the methods of structural linguistics were applicable to the social sciences. To under- stand the kinship-structure or the mythology of a society, for example, it is necessary to study the general types of relationship in- volved rather than the content. Thus two myths about bears seeking honey may be less importantly like each other than one is to a myth about gods or heroes which has the same structure.
But, one may ask, is there still not the important difference that the structural linguists are studying a rule-governed sys- tem, but not, for example, the anthropolo- gists? Levi-Strauss and many of his followers deny this difference; all patterns of human behaviour, they hold, are codes or languages and human behaviour exhibits certain in- nate tendencies to certain types of structure shared by all men.
This is clearly a large and obscure claim; Edmund Leach, himself employing struc- turalistic techniques, obviously finds it largely unintelligible. We need to determine what the significance of the extension of linguistic methods to the social sciences
Leach, in his essay The Legitimacy of Solomon', reveals certain patterns or struc- tures in some Old Testament stories and adds, with refreshing scepticism: 'Whether any particular reader considers this signifi- cant will be largely a matter of taste'. Cer- tainly the claims of 1.6vi-Strauss are hardly empirical. Perhaps the important issue is not whether these background claims are true but whether adopting structuralist techniques in the social sciences brings in- sight.
Michael Lane has collected in this volume essays by many hands and in many fields, but all using structuralist techniques. Very many are of great interest. There is no doubt, on the evidence of this volume, that the method of looking systematically for structural patterns and similarities is justi- fied by works. But the basic faith is surely as obscure as most creeds. To study, say, kinship-structures under the inspiration of Saussure's work on language is one thing, and it is sane and rewarding; but to tell us that a kinship-structure is a code or language is, if not insane, surely to use poetic licence. Perhaps it is a modern myth which itself requires structural analysis.
Previous page
