Page 127 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction

CULT_C06.qxd 10/24/08 17:20 Page 111

6 Structuralism and

post-structuralism

Structuralism, unlike the other approaches discussed here, is, as Terry Eagleton (1983)
points out, ‘quite indifferent to the cultural value of its object: anything from War and
Peace to The War Cry will do. The method is analytical, not evaluative’ (96). Struc-
turalism is a way of approaching texts and practices that is derived from the theoretical
work of the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Its principal exponents are French:
Louis Althusser in Marxist theory, Roland Barthes in literary and cultural studies,
Michel Foucault in philosophy and history, Jacques Lacan in psychoanalysis, Claude
Lévi-Strauss in anthropology and Pierre Macherey in literary theory. Their work is often
very different, and at times very difficult. What unites these authors is the influence of
Saussure, and the use of a particular vocabulary drawn from his work. It is as well, then,
to start our exploration with a consideration of his work in linguistics. This is best
approached by examining a number of key concepts.

Ferdinand de Saussure

Saussure divides language into two component parts. When I write the word ‘dog’ it
produces the inscription ‘dog’, but also the concept or mental image of a dog: a four-
legged canine creature. He calls the first the ‘signifier’, and the second the ‘signified’.
Together (like two sides of a coin or a sheet of paper) they make up the ‘sign’. He then
goes on to argue that the relationship between signifier and signified is completely
arbitrary. The word ‘dog’, for example, has no dog-like qualities; there is no reason why
the signifier ‘dog’ should produce the signified ‘dog’: four-legged canine creature (other
languages have different signifiers to produce the same signified). The relationship
between the two is simply the result of convention – of cultural agreement. The
signifier ‘dog’ could just as easily produce the signified ‘cat’: four-legged feline creature.
On the basis of this claim, he suggests that meaning is not the result of an essential cor-
respondence between signifiers and signifieds; it is rather the result of difference and
relationship. In other words, Saussure’s is a relational theory of language. Meaning is
produced, not through a one-to-one relation to things in the world, but by establish-
ing difference. For example, ‘mother’ has meaning in relation to ‘father’, ‘daughter’,