Page 78 - Decoding Culture
P. 78

ENTER STR C TURALISM  71
                                                  U
          somewhat extravagantly that 'mythical thought always progresses
          from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution' - and
          the expressive  or emotional  dimension of culture as it is experi­
          enced by individuals is all but unthinkable within this framework.
          So much so that, in the wake of this kind of formalism, it was to be
          some years before  a structuralist-inspired cultural  studies found
          terms in which  to  address  questions  about the expressive  plea­
          sures afforded by texts.
            Y e t the charge of over-formalism should not be laid entirely at
          Levi-Strauss' door. The other major figure who influenced the char­
          acter of early structuralism as it was perceived by cultural studies,
          Roland Barthes, although significantly less austere in his formalist
          commitments, also did much to promote a formally inclined mode
          of semiological  analysis.  Unlike Levi-Strauss,  however,  Barthes'
          thinking proved more fluid over time, a feature of his work which
          can be stimulating and frustrating in equal measure. It leads Culler
          (1990: 9-23)  to view him as a 'man of parts', and so he was,  con­
          stantly pursuing a plurality of interests and several times revising
          his principal theoretical commitments. Here I shall be concerned
          primarily with Barthes the systematic semiologist, since it is this
          aspect of his work which most significantly affected early cultural
          studies.  Roughly speaking,  this phase  comes  to  an  end  in  1973
          with the publication of S / Z   (Barthes, 1990) and is dominated by his
          writings of the 1950s and 1960s. As this early work was made avail­
          able  to  an  English-speaking  readership,  it  contributed  to  a
          distinctive cultural studies vision of the semiological enterprise.
            As with Levi-Strauss, Barthes' debt to Saussure is both apparent
          and professed.  He  begins  his  1964  systematization of semiology
          (Barthes,  1973)  with a reference to Saussure's Cours, and by the
          end of his 'Introduction' he has already invoked three of the classic
          Saussurian  distinctions.  'They serve  as  organizing principles for
          his  study.  However,  also  like  Levi-Strauss,  he develops  his own





                              Copyrighted Material
   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83