Structural Anthropology - Critiques of Structural Anthropology

Critiques of Structural Anthropology

By the late 1970s/early 1980s the heyday of alliance theory were over. With the advent of postmodern, interpretive-hermeneutic thought, structuralist and functionalist theories went out of fashion. However, there were also a number of internal incoherences and a range of intrinsic limitations that reduced its appeal.

By overstressing the structural significance of affinal ties, alliance theory effectively neglected the importance of descent and genealogical ties. Some societies (e.g. African tribal societies) employ descent as the primary organizational principle. In others, alliances are of primary significance, as in e.g. many Southeast-Asian societies and amongst Amazonian tribes; and still others place emphasis on both. The Yanomami fit very well into the alliance theory mold while the Tallensi or Azande do not. Holy (1996) pointed out that some Middle-Eastern societies cannot be conclusively explained by either descent or alliance theory. Critics also saw weaknesses in Lévi-Strauss' methods, in the fact that he looked for ideal structures, thereby neglecting the reality and complexity of actual practices. On the other hand, though, his model was ironically too powerful. As Kuper (1988:223) pointed out, if the structures of the mind really are universal and Lévi-Strauss' model is correct, then why is it that not all human societies act accordingly and structure their kinship systems around alliances and exchanges? A central assumption of his was that exchange is the universal form of marriage, but there could be other significant factors. And even if reciprocity was the primary principle that underlies marriages, the return does not have to be in kind but could take other forms (such as money, livestock, services or favours of various kinds). Also, social cohesion through reciprocity does not have to rest primarily on the exchange of women. Mauss' definition of the gift showed that different cultures use all kinds of gifts to create and maintain alliances. Feminists in particular took offense at Lévi-Strauss' claim that the underlying principle according to which all societies work is the exchange of women by men, who dispose of them as if they were objects. Others, for example Godelier, critiqued structuralism's synchronic approach that led it to be essentially ahistorical.

Marxists shifted the attention within anthropology from an almost exclusive preoccupation with kinship to an emphasis on the economic dimension. For them, social structures were primarily shaped by material conditions, property relations and class struggles.

Finally, a great weakness of structuralism is that its main propositions were not formulated in a way so that they could be subject to verification or falsification (cf. D'Andrade, 1995:249; Barnes, 1971:165-171). Lévi-Strauss did not develop a framework that could prove the existence of his concept of the fundamental structures of human thought but simply assumed them to be there, an unfortunate mistake considering that this concept underpinned all of his work. Consequently, it was comparatively easy for post-structuralists such as Derrida to simply reject this notion.