Levi-Strauss Structuralism and related Mythology. Literature & Language

Student’s Name:
Tutor’s Name:
Course (Class):
Date:
Levi-Strauss Structuralism and related Mythology
Levi-Strauss’s structural social ideologies resulted from his desire to philosophy sound more analytic and to be anchored on science. Thus, the substratum of Levi-Strauss’s argument was to remove the elements of abstraction and metaphysics, as ingrained in humanism. Structuralism was painted as a linguistic movement, which was crystallized by breaking down the intricate body of language into smaller binary units. This paper will discuss Levi-Strauss structuralism theory on art and mythology and relate it arguments by Brenner’s analysis, Roland Barthes. Illustrative examples of myths shall be infused into the paper to press the arguments.
The plurality of the language results from the small elemental units, according to Levi-Strauss (Brenner, pp.303). These units were paired and tend to oppose each other through a network of relationships; this became ‘Levi Strauss' theory of binary opposites’. The theory of binary opposites is reflected in artwork, for example in films, one can easily notice the stylistic approach of binaries which include good vs. bad, strong vs. Weak, female vs. male, young vs. old, evil vs. moral, amongst others opposing standings. Language is constituted by a framework of the relationship; this idea is the centrality of structuralism ideology (Brenner, pp.303).
Visual arts are assessed at various levels. For example in painting, the color used exists due to the presence of colored objects. The second level is compromised choice and arrangement patterns of units; this is done according to the character of the artist or the society (Brenner, pp.305), Levi-Strauss observed that the next level is commonly abstract or non-figurative because of it tends to lose objects of primary level of articulation (Brenner, pp.305), like painting by use of a specific color. But this way of explanation has some weaknesses because of the first level of communications devoid of meaning. According to Levi-Strauss, the first level appears to be complemented by objects i.e. color paintings of objects. The second level denotes a meaning through the creation of imagery, a concept and existing relationship (Brenner, pp.305). This levels and understanding trace their roots to the linguist. However, Roland Barthes expounds Levi-Strauss proposition to semiology, where language articulation also includes furniture and food ‘language’, just to mention a few. Barthes argues that an image an ‘ellipsis; of language that is characterized by instantaneous communication. Communicative images are classified as secondary level; this would mean that colors and paintings in visual arts constitute the primary level of communication (Brenner, pp.303). Paintings and color are equivalents of musical sounds and phonemes. Barthes further extrapolates the concept of image and argues that image is subject to aesthetic processes; this can raise its level of articulation, but may not be promoted if it had secured a meaning in the previous level (Brenner, pp.303).
Mythic thinking is inescapable from Levi-Strauss’s work. He viewed myths as ways to present symbolic thoughts. Levi-Strauss concentrates on the symbolic nature of myth language. The myths are organized in a system of language and ideas to be deciphered (Brenner, pp.303). The myths are contradictory and they emerge from oppositional relationships between culture and nature. Levi-Strauss’s anthropological and philosophical grounding indicate that myths could be examined via binary lines, irrespective of the context and culture as such myth. However, myths use ‘mythemes’, which involve the arrangement of particular principles that underpin the process of storytelling. Roman Jakobson, who is a linguist, referred to these as called phonemes, which are the atomic building units of meaningful sounds that constitute words (Levi-Strauss, pp.8). The mythemes can be paired along binary or opposing lines; this brings the universality and commonality of human thought. Levi-Strauss's observations on mythology have not been spared the stroke of criticism. Levi-Strauss's approach to thinking is too abstract; this does not permit scientific relations (Brenner, pp.303).
Levi-Strauss believes that the structural approach and its related mental processes that are aimed at analyzing myths are the same as those in science. In his books, which include The Savage and Myth and Meaning, the relationship that exists between myth and science is elaborated. According to Levi-Strauss, the epicentre of the structuralism is anchored on the innate comprehension of the scientific processe...