Structuralism: A Helpful Overview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 мар 2020
- This video provides a basic explanation of Structuralism in an easy, enthusiastic, and accessible manner. This lecture explains the historical notions it overturned, its influences, and its implications on contemporary culture as taught from the perspective of a contemporary artist.
Content from this lecture has been adapted from Dr. Louis Markos' lectures on Structuralism (Houston Baptist University). Check out his work hbu.edu/contact/louis-markos/
All the images and graphics used in the video belong to their respective owners and I or this channel does not claim any right over them. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
At long last. An overview lecture on structuralism on RUclips that actually makes sense... I can't thank you enough.
You might say it's... well structured? ;D
You have obviously not been looking at the lectures on utube.
It might make sense, but it is extremely insccurate, sorry to say.
Makes sense because other videos don't make sense enough..
@@timadamson3378 True lol. I think she misunderstands ontology and structuralism. She created a palatable dish for people to easily raven from at the expense of a nuanced explanation.
Thank you for the lecture. I'd just like to add a couple of things: Lévi-Strauss wasn't the creator of a paradigmatic (vertical) structural approach, he took this idea from Saussure and employed it in literature to explain mythology. Also, I don't think that your criticism to structuralism is founded. The fact that structuralists (and people in general) use words/linguistic resources to construct their arguments is not a counterargument to the idea of arbitrariness. It does not matter if a tree is called 'tree' or 'arbre', the importance lies in a sound-concept relation, that we connect a specific signifier with what is signified. Structuralists could base their position on a different choice of words, their selection does not show that these meanings are intrinsic.
Could you please lead me to an article or a video that explains this? I’m preparing a presentation and would appreciate the help!
I love how passionate she is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, her love is contagious!! I finally found a video where structuralism is explained very well, thank you so much!
You're welcome
This is one of the most concise video's on Structuralism I've seen on youtube. I have been studying post structuralism for the last two years, specifically Deleuze and Guattari which has rescued me from a superficial existence. You have earned yourself a subscriber and I will share this for those trapped in structuralist thinking. Great work!
I cannot emphasize enough on the fact that how helpful to students and to overall humanity are these lectures that breaks difficult studies into simplest of its elements. Thank you so much ma'am.
This is such a great resource. Thanks a lot for posting this!
Brilliant. I wrote my French masters thesis in 1983 on the subject of Mallarmé's translations of Poe, and how translation theory did not accommodate the "two axis" problem of meaning in translation viewed from the perspective of structuralist theory. It was very hard work, but very rewarding. The idea was that literal meaning lay on one axis, and poetical 'essence' or the impulse of the sounds of language in poetry lay on the other axis. The ideal translation was one that managed to accommodate literal meaning while conveying the essence of the language of the original in the translation. For what it's worth, this vid completely refreshed my memory of what was behind this damned thesis 40 years ago. The underlying structuralist concept was the foundation stone, but I had forgotten exactly how or why until now. Thank you. I now realize, in retrospect, I wrote a pretty goddamn good thesis, under these conditions.
Is the paper available on the net?
Thank you so much for this. Saussure’s writing (or perhaps just his English translations) can be incredibly intimidating and daunting. Even after spending days with them, this video has helped immensely in my understanding and immersion into structuralism.
Plato was actually dancing around quantum physics…ideas are manifested potential which exist in pure wave form, until one is isolated through observation and brought to physical form. Quantum to Classical, is correlative to epistemological to ontological.
omg this helped me so much for my critical theory class, like i completely understood you!!! Lots of writings on structuralism tend to be ranting almost, very all over the place so this was great
This is amazing! I'm currently in my masters for English and we are going over structuralism this week. It was hard to grasp until I saw this video, so thank you!
Hey there. Do recommend any more videos or articles that explain it in this way? I’m doing a presentation on it and would appreciate the help!
Great! You have really got the gift for turning difficult concept into simple language. Thank you, indeed!
Amazingly explained. Would love a similar kind of work for post-structuralism, humanism, post humanism as well please!
One of the few videos about this kind of theory that acknowledges the ironies and hypocrisies. A breath of fresh air, makes your video much more trustworthy!
I am getting distracted by all those good looking books in the background.
I'm distracted by her body languages. I don't care if you're the kinesthetic type it's just annoying at that point and almost pretentious.
@@adolfhitler5783 I understand what you mean. I like hand movements during lectures and stuff but only when they are small and calm.
@@adolfhitler5783 Lol coming from "Adolf Hitler", a guy who basically trained himself 24/7 on how to use hand movement and body language.
@@adolfhitler5783 thanks for the opinion hitler
@@MagnaVictus lol coming from a skull wearing glasses which means dead person just like adolf hitler
Really helpful and clarifying a lot of not previously connected ideas and notions I had in my head. I also envy you for such a rich library you have in the background. :)
Magnificent to find an awestruck calibre of explanation... Nailed it in a solid fashion... God bless sister... Being a lover of literature and a Research Scholar in it, I thank you for the experience...
I’m still watching the video and will rewatch it a bunch of times. But just wanted to say you beautiful BEAUTIFUL human thank you so much. I’m kinda getting the hang of this now. You explain it so well. Thank you!!!
So far this is the most helpful lecture to understand structuralism.. thanks a lot !
Thank you for making this video, it was really helpful! I'm reading about Deconstruction and purchased Deconstruction by David J. Gunkel and was having a hard time understanding some of the things he was saying about structuralism and this video helped me greatly!
This was very helpful. I liked the way you connect these rather abstract ideas to everyday things. Philosophy you can use!!!
Thank you so much! This video helped me immensely as I was not understanding structuralism. I truly appreciate your video!
Thank you for the wonderful video! This is the best under 20 minutes video on this topic. Still looking forward to the Post-Structuralism video!!!
Wow clearly and beautifully explained. I can say that you were enjoying while explaining the concept to us. Thanks for the video!
Your explanation is very helpful and simply presented. Looking forward to see other videos.
I really appreciate the insight that Structuralism is an inversion of Platonic Idealism. Also that she considers Marx and Freud as forerunners of Structuralism. Thank you.
Found it to be wonderful and useful for literature people like me, and I really love the way you presented it and oh my God, your voice is amazing ❤️.
But I was surprised that you didn't mention Roland Barthes who's such an influential theorist of structuralism who went into post-structuralism later.
Hello, can you help me to understand cultural studies plz?
OMG ! Thank you so much Ma'am. Much love from Algeria 🇩🇿💜
Awesome - its great to watch this video. As Sorala mentioned:
I love how passionate you is while talking about it, it makes me really enjoy to learn, Its great to see your love and engagement.
Found this to be extremely helpful! I don't understand why all of this can't be explained by others in a simpler manner. Please inform me where to locate the 2nd part, on Deconstruction.
I'm watching this bc I have an essay due in three days about all the schools of psychology used for advertising and my teacher did not explain the topic NEARLY as well as you did. what the hell! thank you so much this is very clear and one can tell you're super passionate about this, i love that.
Oh my god same. How did that go for you you have you got any tips
I’m supposed to evaluate
Nice what a great explaination about structuralism ,usefull video
this was amazing. awaiting the video on post structuralism eagerly :)
This is very helpful, easy to understand and fun to watch. I'm now waiting for the poststructuralism video :)
i can not find the poststructuralism vedio .can you send me the link?
Thank you for this video!! I hope you'll continue making them)
Great! clear and easy to understand. Where is the video she mentioned for post-structuralism?
i came this video bumped into my feed cause I have looked up some video on Claude Lévi Strauss in the most elegant and scientific way there was and also because some people see him as the father of modern anthropology after that i looked up a little bit more about this structuralism thing and I'm very glad that i came upon your video
Very lucid explanation! You are a gift to students of Truth! Thank you very much!
Great stuff. The posture and the whole presention of the lady herself reminds fo my own euphora when I just discovered the disipline of Semiotics and Semiosis concepts. it's great to learn about Structuralism with its shortcomings. This is an opprotunity to attack the whole system of Structural'st idea and perhaps we may be able to make contributions to the exiting knowledge.
This was a fantastic explanation. Thank you!
Thank you. This was most illuminating. This explains the world.
Very well and clearly explained! Thank you very much!
You are good at it.Go on making it, incrementally,deeper.
Well explained! Very helpful, thank you a lot ^^
Thank you so much for this video!! So well explained!!
Absolutely loved this! Would you mind making a video on post-structuralism?
a video that’s ACTUALLY helpful 🥺 thank you so much
Thank you, finally a proper video on STRUCTURALISM.
Nailed it in the last part; they are complimentary approaches. This subject has been touched on for millenia, but not always in language that is understood well in modernity. There is a need for periodic revitalization of this idea in scientific consciousness of a given age.
The dichotomy that is described in the video is to me very similar to more ancient ideas of governance (of the mind and by extension the state, which is merely mind collectivized) whereby the "true" perception is more of a synthesis between two poles... namely, there is a logical (sometimes depicted as masculine) understanding and an intuitive,creative or mystical (female) understanding. In the marriage (indeed it has in the past been referred to as a holy matrimony within the individual) of these two ways of conceiving arises the child of action that mediates between them. This is basically what people like Jung are getting at when they talk about ideas like "the Transcendant Function" (which is a fascinating line of inquiry for those who are intrigued).
Well explained! This is useful and such a great deal of resource and practical ideas about the topic. (p.s. I love your background though 😍)
Excellent video! I have been working for some time with discoursive semiotics from the school of Greimas, and one of the critiques I've always had is this: Greimasian semiotics (as a genuine structuralist theory) splits all discourse between content and expression (like Saussure with a signified and a signifier). It teaches us to identify WHAT is the content, but also to never look at the content and how it affects what is being expressed. For example, if I analyze a poem and it speaks about love, in my analysis I should mention that it does speak about love, but never look at the lyric-self's opinion on love. I may mention it, but that shouldn't affect the analysis. It's crazy: The content is analysed, but not considered as something that will interfere in the analysis.
Crazy indeed. Because there is this assumption, that the reference of the 'content' is actually inscrutible, or even non-existent. This is I think structuralism's most ridiculous assumption. John Searle has very good work on the topic, on explaining social ontology and interpretation by revealing the amazing capacity that allows for a cognitive system to refer to external realities - the intentionality of the mind.
Thank you, exactly the kind of video I was looking for!!!!
This is awesome thank u ; I'd love to see more vids like this on other subjects
Thank you a million for this lecture.
❤️❤️❤️
I loove how passionate she is about this topic
this was so so helpful, thank you for sharing this!!
Both are beautiful - The presenter and the presentation.
Thank you for a clear and concise overview of this topic. Is there a follow up on Post Structuralism?
Amazing. It comes in my mind that structuralism / network-build-up could follow some collective-unconscious macro shapes. Like molecules of though that emerge in symbolic materialism through millennials, such a s the early dolmen/menhir, then the artificial hill, the pyramid, the cube and now the globe.
Such an insightful video! Thank you
amazing explanation!! very easy to understand
Really enjoy your passion and charisma
Easily understandable very good way of teaching...
You are amazing, please make more! Please just go hardcore on this philosophy stuff my young soul needs it!
Thank you so much from your explanation I get some ideas to write my paper., it is obviously clear and knowledgeable
Beautifully explained by beautiful philosopher
That was really helpful. I am waiting for the post-structuralism now.
Is the post structuralism out yet?
Except for the rather trendy, seemingly obligatory objections to Structuralism thrown in at the end, I like this explanation a lot. Thank you. :)
Impressive presentation
15:32 - But if words are arbitrary that doesn't necessarily follows they don't have any meaning, right? It just follows that the meaning we attribute to them is a human projection and not something of things in themselves, right?
yeah. this and some other points made me take this lecture less seriously
100% agree
8% agree
Thank you, it makes a lot of sense.
there's a difference between "absolutely arbitrary", as in, any specific culture's words are as reasonable a choice as any other culture's words within a structure, and there being utility in using shared definitions within a specific context. This difference is somewhat ignored in the video, as they are presented as contradiction. Structuralists said that all terms were arbitrary, that does not mean there isn't utility in using those agreed-upon terms, even if they are "arbitrary". (though they are only really "arbitrary" if you consider them outside of the context of a specific historical linguistic structure, and the original context that structuralists used the word "arbitrary" in was in considering meaning outside of structure, and using a definition dependent on context like that also consistent with structuralism)
Thank you!
I was actually looking in the comment section for someone who has pointed this out. I think the whole critique part goes wrong. For another example, proposing "agent explanation" as something apart from a "scientific explanation" is really not well-thought. Also, she points out that looking at things the way structuralism does has huge implications for our understanding of agency and "meaning". I may ask, So what? As Hume would say (based on a paragraph in "Enquiry") we must not ignore the truths for they may affect our comfort zone, "humanity" and "meaning"!
Thank you so so much! This video was really helpful!!!
This Is GOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better than my professor, and books!
This was really great. Thank you.
Thank you for this amazing video 🙏🏻
Finally, your explanation gave me peace about structuralism. Now, what about Post-structuralism... any recommendation?
The CD example os brilliant. Basically if you remember that you can remember structuralist idiology. Very cool
Honestly, this was an abstruse idea for me to comprehend through the articles I have read, which were overly verbose. The hardest part for me to traverse were the differences that arose from the juxtapositions that I made with different articles, but this video, your enthusiasm, and scintillating attitude, made it highly unequivocal. What I was missing is that in fact structuralism is a methodology, :) thank you!
Great presentation!
amazing explanation! thank you
Thank you for this amazing and informative vid on structuralism
Don't take me wrong but there are two objects that have intention to divert my attention despite the fact that your lecture is fabulously good and simple to understand.
finally we have THE lecture 😊
I am so istracted by your bookshelf and I mean that in the best way possible
I loved your way of explaining beside your amazing body language
It is a great lecture...and amazing lovely lecturer
Wonderful video. Thank you!
Best video on structuralism!
Fantastic video, thank you
ohh what a wonderful video lecture that was.! I cannot thank u, enough
Thanks for your efforts ✨
Just great! Thanks for this.
thank you so much brilliant video
This was really helpful. Thank You.
Wonderful explanation, thank you so much. So many great examples, especially John Lennox. However, whenever you say "underlining" - I wonder if you actually mean "underlying" ? Your english is better than mine, so maybe you are right. But it feels strange.
Thanks for this. I'm still trying to understand. But from watching this, even though structuralism - definitionally - was painted in this video as being materialistic and the opposite of idealism, it just confirms to me that structuralism is actually just another form of idealism. The double-slit experiment in physics is an analogy I am using to make sense of this: measuring a particle's position also determines the outcome - it seems to me that the measurement process itself (I'm getting a little complex and speculative here) applies an acceleration to the particle that acts (or is in fact the same) the way acceleration due to gravity warps space-time, in that it has the effect of determining where the particle goes... If the acceleration was caused by a black hole for example a particle would have no choice but to fall into the black hole - i.e. there would be no free will. Indeed, if you measure to the accuracy of the planck scale you will actualyl create a black hole. However, when you don't measure the particle's position the outcome is less determined, because there is no acceleration acting on the particle, and the particle is said to be in many places at once in this case - i.e. this allows for freedom, as in 'free will'. To me, the case of not measuring the particle's position is closer to a materialistic philosophical approach (it is actually said to be in a state of 'coherence'). While, to me, measuring the particle's position is closer to an idealistic philosophical approach. I think the mistake of the structuralists was to treat reality as being like a mechanical, determined clockwork universe with no capacity for free will - and then assign this to being a materialistic world view.. But I think they'd totally forgotten the underlying freedom and hedonistic quality of the roots of materialism as a philosophy. At least if this is what they genuinely believed? Or if they are mistakenly interpretted this way? I also think it's a mistake to say that Marx didn't believe in free will - I think if free will is lost, it is because of a system that erodes free will by basically applying a 'measurement' to people (giving everything a monetary value for example)... Leave people be and there will be more freedom imo.
This is an excellent explainer 🎉
I hope my poor command of English does not betray me. What a show of presentation. What a sexy way (non-sexual) to present relatively complex concepts. The "linguistic" explanation of Saussure was one of the best I've ever seen. Note 19 (out od 20). Missing, in my opinion, was the allusion to Braudel and his debates with Levi-Strauss. It would have put more clearly the question of the "limitations" of Structuralism. Just loved it!
Thank you so much, my political philosophy teacher didn't really expain this part of the book :)