Even though scholars directly involved in the discourse were themselves not able to clearly differentiate between structuralism, functionalism and the various combinations of the two terms, retrospectively, two lines have been drawn.
The first is between functionalism which was brought forward by Malinowski and his followers at the LSE and structural-functionalism. The latter was historically developed as a direct reply to a Malinowskian individualism by Radcliffe-Brown, Fortes and Evans-Pritchard.
The line this essay is going to blur separates structural-functionalism from originally French structuralism as coined by Levi-Strauss. I argue that those retrospective lines are nowadays often as artificial as they were for contemporary scholars in the early 1900s. Many commonalities – in their striving for universal laws, and even their fallacies – are contrasted by some differences, mainly in their treatment of fieldwork and the concept of structure.
The different schools of thought were organically growing out of each other rendering the continuity of features natural. Only paying attention in passing to the earlier, ‘purely’ functionalist school of Malinowski, I compare the structural functionalism most clearly visible in Radcliffe-Brown with Levi-Strauss’ structuralism. Let me briefly put forward his arguments on methods in general as well as function and structure in particular before Levi-Strauss enters the analysis.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: Differentiation of structuralism and functionalism
2. The structural-functionalist framework: Radcliffe-Brown and the search for laws
3. Commonalities between structuralism and functionalism
4. Critical perspectives on structuralism and structural-functionalism
5. Methodological differences: Fieldwork and the notion of structure
6. Conclusion: Continuity and divergence in structural analysis
Objectives and Core Themes
This academic text investigates the methodological and theoretical distinctions between Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism and the structural-functionalism associated with Radcliffe-Brown. It aims to clarify whether these two schools of thought are truly oppositional or part of a continuous development in anthropological analysis, specifically focusing on the application of kinship theory.
- The historical relationship between structuralism and functionalism.
- The application of the "avunculate" as a case study for kinship systems.
- Methodological differences in fieldwork practices and ethnographic empirical evidence.
- The definition and reification of "structure" and "generalizable laws."
- Critiques regarding the capacity of these theories to account for social change and historical context.
Excerpt from the Book
Methodological differences: Fieldwork and the notion of structure
Levi-Strauss has been in the field only briefly during his early career stay in Brazil. “Structuralism justifiably claims to be the critique of empiricism … the structural schemata are always proposed hypotheses resulting from a finite quantity of information and which are subjected to the proof of experience” (Derrida, 2002:364). His focus is not empiricist but generally on the expression of general laws and the emergence of patterns out of case-study material. As Leach (1970:42) observes, the empirical process is only a means to an end – namely the formulation of general, universal laws. Particular his notion of ‘unobserved permutations’ is revealing in this context. To cite Leach (ibid.:45) again, the “empirical case is only one alternative from a whole set of possibilities”. Figuring out those alternatives in the abstract through algebraic transformations leads to the desired systematisation. Fieldwork is thus for LS only the starting point. This assumption obviously leads to a methodological problem – how is it possible to abstract from such a limited number of cases – that is often raised as the main criticism on LS (Leach, 1970:88,91,98,102,117). The structural functionalists, on the other hand, very much based on a Malinowskian education, are fieldworkers. Take the case of Evans-Pritchard, who lived among the Nuer and other African peoples for altogether more than a decade years. Similarly, Radcliffe-Brown spent about two years each in Australia and among the Andamen islanders.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Differentiation of structuralism and functionalism: This chapter sets the stage by tracing the retrospective historical divide between Malinowskian functionalism, Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functionalism, and the French structuralism of Lévi-Strauss.
2. The structural-functionalist framework: Radcliffe-Brown and the search for laws: This section details the focus on empirical observation and the classification of structural systems as a "statute" for structural-functionalism, emphasizing the jural significance of kinship.
3. Commonalities between structuralism and functionalism: The author identifies a shared Durkheimian foundation and a mutual search for generalizable rules, comparing the use of binary distinctions in both schools.
4. Critical perspectives on structuralism and structural-functionalism: This chapter presents external critiques from scholars like Gellner and Runciman regarding the lack of mechanisms for explaining social change and historical origin.
5. Methodological differences: Fieldwork and the notion of structure: The chapter contrasts the varying reliance on extensive fieldwork versus abstract modeling and discusses how the two schools conceive of structure (objective ties vs. human consciousness).
6. Conclusion: Continuity and divergence in structural analysis: The final section summarizes that while Lévi-Strauss sought to refine the functionalist approach, his work represents a continuation of the structural analysis pioneered by Radcliffe-Brown.
Keywords
Structuralism, Functionalism, Radcliffe-Brown, Lévi-Strauss, Kinship, Avunculate, Fieldwork, Generalizable Laws, Structural-Functionalism, Social Structure, Binary Distinctions, Durkheim, Empirical Observation, Anthropology, Social Organization
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this analysis?
The text analyzes the theoretical and methodological differences between the structural-functionalism of Radcliffe-Brown and the structuralism proposed by Claude Lévi-Strauss.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The themes include the definition of social structure, the role of empirical fieldwork, the pursuit of universal laws, and the interpretation of kinship systems.
What is the primary objective of this work?
The objective is to move beyond the "artificial" retrospective lines drawn between these schools of thought and examine their shared roots and nuanced divergences.
Which scientific methods are analyzed?
The work compares the structural-functionalist method of intensive case-study comparison with Lévi-Strauss’s approach of abstract modeling, mathematical permutations, and binary analysis.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body covers the theoretical framework of structural-functionalism, the critiques concerning historical and social change, and the specific application of these theories to the "avunculate" (the uncle-nephew relationship).
Which keywords characterize this text?
Key terms include structuralism, functionalism, kinship, social structure, empirical observation, and methodology.
How does Lévi-Strauss interpret kinship compared to Radcliffe-Brown?
Lévi-Strauss views kinship as an arbitrary system of representations existing in human consciousness, whereas Radcliffe-Brown views it as a directly observable social structure based on objective ties.
Why is the "avunculate" significant in this study?
The avunculate serves as a comparative case study to demonstrate how both schools try to explain kinship patterns, highlighting their differing views on system context and structural analysis.
What is the main criticism regarding the "structuralist" project?
Critics argue that structuralism lacks the tools to account for social change, historical origins, and the influence of external environmental constraints.
- Citar trabajo
- Johannes Lenhard (Autor), 2013, Structuralism and Functionalism. The Difference between Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski and Evans-Pritchard in Reference to Kinship, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/209435
