Structuralism (n.) is a method of analysis whereby, much like with the negative image of a photography whereby every point is changed and yet the image is fully recognizable, constant relations are drawn from elements that in themselves, in their own character, in their substance, can change.
Structuralism (n.) is a mode of analysis whereby what counts in essence are systems of relations and thus not at all the lived individual experience of people.
Structuralism (n.) is a useful tool in the way it concentrates on relations between things rather than on the essences of things, but in the end it is to be rejected for its ahistorical formalism.
Structuralism (n.) is of limited value. Where Levi-Strauss takes an interested in virtual systems (which are grounded in the idea that historical development is dependent solely on causal determination), It is of far more interest to study actual systems that take form at the intersection of a messy collection of discursive and non-discursive practices.
Structuralism (n.) is the captive to classical form of knowledge, and for this reason is to be rejected.
Structuralism (n.) is the effort to create an ensemble of relations between single elements which have been spread out in time and space to make them appear as connected, contrasted and implicated by each other.
Structuralism (n.) is to be rejected because it is the captive to classical form of knowledge.
Structuralism (n.) is wrongheaded in that it itself is an example of a linguistic formation which is not a nexus of relations themselves, but rather, it is constituted by the socio-political manifestation of power.