of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
  See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: Structuralism Chapter  · January 2010 CITATIONS 0 READS 6,099 1 author:Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Posthumanism and environmental education   View projectOutdoor and Environmental Education: Looking Back while Looking Forward (theme of a Special Issue of Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, Volume 19,Number 2, October 2016).   View projectNoel GoughLa Trobe University 246   PUBLICATIONS   1,784   CITATIONS   SEE PROFILE All content following this page was uploaded by Noel Gough on 01 October 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.  Gough, Noel. (in press). Structuralism. In Kridel, Craig (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies .  New York: Sage Publications. STRUCTURALISM Structuralism is a conceptual and methodological approach to describing and analyzing a variety of objects of inquiry including, for example, cultures, economics, language, literature, mythologies, politics, and societies. A structuralist analysis assumes that these objects of inquiry can be characterized by underlying structures conceived as systems of interrelated parts and that they can be defined (at least in part) by relationships among these constitutive elements. Structuralist assumptions (concerning both the existence of underlying structures  and   the methods by which they should be analyzed) developed within what we now tend to label ‘Continental’ (that is, non-Anglophone European) philosophy – much of it French – during the early decades of the twentieth century, but the influence of structuralism on both Continental and Anglo-American scholarship became much more prominent after World War II. From the late 1940s through the 1970s (and to a diminished extent beyond), structuralist thought had a significant and explicit purchase on disciplines such as anthropology, cognitive development, literary criticism, mathematics, political science, and sociology. In retrospect, we can also discern implicit structuralist assumptions in the literatures of educational research and curriculum inquiry during this period. For example, two of the most influential curriculum texts in the immediate post-WWII era were Ralph Tyler’s 1949  Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction  and Benjamin Bloom et al.’s 1956 Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.  Neither of these texts proselytizes for structuralism and nor do they cite structuralist literatures, but both texts appear to be replete with structuralist assumptions and to invoke structural principles in their reasoning. Exposing, naming and criticizing the structuralist assumptions that continue to pervade contemporary curriculum texts, discourses and practices has largely fallen to scholars who adopt  poststructuralist positions. A Brief History and Characterization One of the earliest influences in the development of structuralism was Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics , a text published posthumously in 1916 that was compiled by his colleagues from students’ notes of a series of lectures he gave at the University of Geneva from 1906 to 1911. Saussure applied structural analysis only to linguistic systems but many Continental philosophers and intellectuals chose to apply his reasoning more widely, and his assumptions and methods were subsequently modified and extended to other disciplines and to nonlinguistic phenomena. Structuralism was increasingly taken up within fields such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, literary theory, and architecture, to the extent to which it became an influential intellectual movement that, by the 1960s and 1970s, had to a large extent eclipsed phenomenology and existentialism. Structuralism assumes that all human social activities – the clothes we choose to wear, the books we write, the cultural rituals we practice – constitute languages and that their regularities can therefore be codified by abstract sets of underlying rules. Thus, for example, the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan asserted that the unconscious was structured like a language, and Michel Foucault’s early writings characterized knowledge as what can be spoken of in a discursive practice. We can therefore appreciate some of the distinctive properties of structuralism and its effects by considering a number of Saussure’s assumptions, assertions and methods and seeing how some or all of these appear to underlie the reasoning and arguments of educational texts such as Tyler’s rationale for curriculum development and instruction and Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. According to Saussure, language is structured prior to its realization in speech or    2 writing. Language consists of a set of  signs , each of which is constituted by a  signifier (a sound or inscribed image) and a  signified   (a concept or meaning). Other scholars use different words for  signifier   and  signified  , and most add a third aspect to Saussure’s linguistic  sign  so as to include nonlinguistic objects or referents. For Saussure, signs are arbitrary because a word (  signifier  ) is linked to a concept or meaning (  signified  ) by the conventions and common usages of a particular speech community. Signs do not exist outside of a system and a word’s meaning is determined by its relationships to, and differences from, other words, with the result that binary distinctions or oppositions tend to determine the content and normative commitments of the structure. Saussure also distinguished langue  (language) from  parole (speech) and his structural linguistics focuses on language (the totality of signs that constitute a natural language, such as French or English) and not on particular utterances. Saussure’s analytic method examines language at one moment in time – a static snapshot of a constantly changing system – which moved semiology from diachronic  to  synchronic  analysis. Thus, Saussure’s structuralist linguistics appears to be ahistorical, a much-criticized (especially but not only by poststructuralists) characteristic that it shares with many other manifestations of structuralist thought. Finally, structuralist analysis of sign systems focuses on describing and mapping relationships, categories and classifications and thus tends to represent itself as an ideologically neutral method. The cloak of ideological neutrality has led some critics to associate (or conflate) structuralism with positivism, but not all knowledge claims that arise from structuralist arguments can be taken as positivist. When structuralist thought is applied to studies of society and social relations the individual human subject is decentered. Structuralism questioned the salience of individual agency and sought to explain social interaction in terms of its predetermination by underlying social structures. For example, during the 1940s Claude Lévi-Strauss initiated a program of structural anthropology that sought to identify the structures that determine cultural practices and myths across societies. In his 1949 book, The Elementary Structures of Kinship , Lévi-Strauss applied structuralist reasoning to his examination of kinship systems across cultures and demonstrated that social arrangements that appeared to be very different could plausibly  be understood as permutations of a small number of underlying kinship structures. By the early 1960s, many Continental scholars were working with structuralist ideas, although many resisted being labeled as such and some eventually became more identifiable as poststructuralists. For example, Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida explored structuralist approaches to literary criticism (although Derrida now is chiefly associated with deconstruction, which is a complex response to several theoretical and philosophical movements, especially phenomenology, psychoanalysis and structuralism) and, as already noted, Jacques Lacan applied Saussure’s structuralism to psychoanalysis. Methods of structural analysis (as distinct from structuralist assumptions) appear to have informed Jean Piaget’s studies in developmental psychology, although he is more likely to have described himself as constructivist. Foucault explicitly denied his affiliation with structuralism in his later works, but his 1966 book, The Order of Things , seeks to explain how structures of epistemology ( episteme ) in the history of science have determined the ways in which we imagine knowledge and knowing. Thomas Kuhn also investigated the structured production of scientific knowledge and methods in his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific  Revolutions , which demonstrated how the conventions of scientists’ speech communities shape standard practice and discourage deviations from ‘normal science’ under most circumstances. Louis Althusser also decenters the human subject in his structuralist interpretation of Marxism, in which he argues that individual agency and social interaction is predetermined  by social structures, namely, ideological state apparatuses  that reproduce capitalist relations of exploitation in the interests of the ruling class.    3 Structuralist thinking in curriculum Cleo Cherryholmes clearly demonstrates (in his 1988 book,  Power and Criticism ) that many of the characteristics of structuralist thinking described above are pervasive (albeit unacknowledged) ways of thinking about education. Structuralist thinking in education foregrounds order, organization and certainty, which Cherryholmes illustrates by exposing the structuralist assumptions, methods and reasoning in Tyler’s  Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction  and Benjamin Bloom et al.’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives . Tyler’s rationale is an approach to thinking systematically about curriculum and instruction that unequivocally imposes structuralist assumptions on those who use it by requiring them to: 1. Define learning objectives 2. Select useful learning experiences 3. Organize experiences to maximize their effect 4. Evaluate the process and revise where needed The structuralist characteristics of this rationale include: 1. The four steps define and regulate curriculum, but the individual steps have no meaning outside of the system in which they are located; their curricular meanings are determined by the relationships among steps in the process. For example, learning objectives have little meaning when considered in isolation, but become meaningful in a systematic structure of organized learning experiences and evaluation. Similarly, an evaluation instrument has no meaning in isolation but becomes significant in the context of learning objectives and experiences. 2. Binary distinctions and oppositions (many of which are tacit) determine the content and normative commitments of Tyler’s rationale: purposeful/purposeless, organization/disorganization, accountability/nonaccountability, continuity/discontinuity, sequence/nonsequence, evaluation/nonevaluation. Readers are left in no doubt as to which term in each pair is valued by the structure. 3. Tyler’s rationale is ahistorical insofar as objectives, learning experiences, their organization, and evaluation are analyzed by reference to an immediate situation rather than to their historical antecedents. 4. Tyler’s rationale is represented as an ideologically neutral design process. 5. Tyler’s rationale decenters the agency of teachers and learners by assuming that structural relations – among objectives, learning experiences, their organization, and evaluation – determine the curriculum and its meanings. The full title of Bloom et al.’s 1956 book, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain , excessively overdetermines its structuralist credentials (even though its authors do not cite a structuralist literature) .  The book begins with an epigraph that quotes Webster’s New Collegiate  Dictionary ’s (1953) definition of taxonomy as the ‘classification, esp. of animals and plants according to their natural relationships’, a definition that emphasizes that a taxonomy is more (that is, more structured) than a simple classification. The authors aspire to constructing a taxonomy in which the order of its terms corresponds to some ‘real’ (their ‘scare’ quotes) order among the phenomena represented by the terms. But the authors also recognize that taxonomies are social constructions and admit that (quoting directly from p. 13) ‘the determination of classes and their titles is in some ways arbitrary’. This juxtaposition of their acknowledgment of the arbitrariness of a sign with their desire for a sign to represent something that is ‘real’, is an eloquent (though almost certainly unintended) reminder of structuralism’s limitations and contradictions.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!