Page 73 - Decoding Culture

66 D E C O D I N G C U L TURE

capacity of its models to make sense out of our ways of producing
and using cultural forms.
In its main line of development structuralism offered cultural
studies both an overarching, trans-disciplinary framework, and a
set of concepts which suggested the outlines of a method of analy­
sis. Concern with langue, with the coding of signification, with the
whole project of semiology, pointed toward an enterprise which
could uncover structural fixity in the midst of cultural variation. It
was this strand of structuralism that dominated the early years, and
with mixed results. On the positive side - and this should not be
underestimated - structuralism's concern to examine the underly­
ing and enabling structures of culture provided just the theoretical
and methodological focus that cultural studies needed to set it on
its way. Without this impetus, it is difficult to imagine the 'disci­
pline' developing as it has. On the negative side, early structuralist
cultural studies attracted the charge of excessive formalism which
later led to mounting concerns about the drift toward textual deter­
minism. As we shall see, both accusations had some merit.
However, in the event, neither was sufficient to undermine the
credibility of structuralist perspectives, partly because structural­
ism itself proved highly adaptable. So-called post-structuralist
counter-positions were rapidly derived from those features of
Saussure's thought which foregrounded the relational and poly­
semic character of complex communication. Indeed. the 'post' in
post-structuralism may be something of a misnomer, given how
dependent such positions are on Saussure's original thinking. I
shall return to that in Chapter 4. First it is necessary to pay some­
what closer attention to two of the major contributors to, and
mediators of, that first wave of structuralist influence: Claude Uvi­
Strauss and Roland Barthes.

Copyrighted Material