Editing Structuralism (section)

== Interpretations and general criticisms ==<!-- This section is linked from [[Jürgen Habermas]], [[Philip Pettit]], [[Paul Ricœur]] and [[Cornelius Castoriadis]] -->
Structuralism is less popular today than other approaches, such as [[post-structuralism]] and [[deconstruction]]. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favouring [[Determinism|deterministic]] structural forces over the [[Agency (philosophy)|ability of people to act]]. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (particularly the [[Protests of 1968|student uprisings of May 1968]]) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of public attention.<ref>Marshall, J. D., ed. 2004. [https://books.google.com/books?id=rwDR3oSoWWAC ''Poststructuralism, Philosophy, Pedagogy'']. Springer. p. xviii.</ref>

In the 1980s, [[deconstruction]]—and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language rather than its logical structure—became popular. By the end of the century, structuralism was seen as a historically important [[school of thought]], but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention.<ref>[[Alan Finlayson|Finlayson, Alan]], and Jeremy Valentine. 2002. [https://books.google.com/books?id=dQMQAQAAIAAJ ''Politics and post-structuralism: an introduction'']. Edinburgh University Press. p. 8.</ref>

Several social theorists and academics have strongly criticized structuralism or even dismissed it. French [[hermeneutic]] philosopher [[Paul Ricœur]] (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for overstepping the limits of [[Validity (logic)|validity]] of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a [[Kantianism]] without a [[transcendental subject]]."<ref>[[Paul Ricœur|Ricœur, Paul]]. [1969] 2004. ''The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics'' [''Le conflit des interprétations: Essais d’herméneutique'']. [[Continuum Publishing|Continuum]]. pp. 49, 78ff.</ref> 

Anthropologist [[Adam Kuper]] (1973) argued that:<ref>[[Adam Kuper|Kuper, Adam]]. 1973. ''Anthropologists and Anthropology: The British School 1922–72''. Penguin. p. 206.</ref><blockquote>'Structuralism' came to have something of the momentum of a millennial movement and some of its adherents felt that they formed a [[secret society]] of the seeing in a world of the blind. Conversion was not just a matter of accepting a new paradigm. It was, almost, a question of salvation. </blockquote>[[Philip Noel Pettit]] (1975) called for an abandoning of "the [[Positivism|positivist]] dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for [[semiology]]," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the [[natural sciences]].<ref>[[Philip Pettit|Pettit, Philip]]. 1975. [https://books.google.com/books?id=lQ5n3czwdZQC ''The Concept of Structuralism: A Critical Analysis'']. University of California Press. p. 117.</ref> [[Cornelius Castoriadis]] (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain [[Symbolic system|symbolic mediation]] in the social world;<ref>[[Cornelius Castoriadis|Castoriadis, Cornelius]]. [1975] 1987. ''The Imaginary Institution of Society'' [''L'institution imaginaire de la société'']. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 116–17.</ref> he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "[[Scientific rationalism|logicist]]"<!--[sic]--> theme, arguing that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the [[Two-valued logic|binary logic]] of [[Square of opposition|oppositions]].<ref>C. Castoriadis (1997), ''The Imaginary: Creation in the Social-Historical Domain''. In: ''World in Fragments''. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 3–18.</ref> 

[[Critical theorist]] [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1985) accused structuralists like [[Michel Foucault|Foucault]] of being [[Positivism|positivists]]; Foucault, while not an ordinary positivist per se, paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science, according to Habermas.<ref>Habermas, J. (1990), ''[[The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity]]'' (originally published in German in 1985 as ''Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne''), MIT Press, 1990, p. 276.</ref> (See ''[[Performative contradiction#Usage in philosophy|Performative contradiction]]'' and ''[[Foucault–Habermas debate]]''.) Sociologist [[Anthony Giddens, Baron Giddens|Anthony Giddens]] (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of [[social system]]s is merely "a mechanical outcome."<ref>[[Anthony Giddens|Giddens, Anthony]]. 1993. ''New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies.'' Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 121.</ref>