Summary: Levi-Strauss, “The Structural Study of Myth”
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. “The Structural Study of Myth.” The Journal of American Folklore, vol. 68, no. 270, 1955, pp. 428–444., doi:10.2307/536768.
Summary
Levi-Strauss begins his essay by explaining that he believes anthropologists should study the system of myths rather than the sociological or psychological aspects of myths. He then goes on to explain the structural system that he defines for literary myths in an attempt to shift anthropologists’ view of myths from “an idle play or…coarse kind of speculation” to a structured system. He begins by stating that the “lack of continuity” between any two myths is one of the traits that fit myths within a single system because this lack of continuity is found across geographical regions and throughout various time periods. Levi-Strauss stated that myths are not only similar to the language system described by Saussure (i.e., langue and parole), but are themselves, a type of language. The components, or constituent units, of myths are not lost in translation, as is the case with poetry, but rather, translated across cultures because of those bundled constituent units that make up a myth remain the same (although the details of the constituent units may vary—similar to the manner in which sentences vary within a language). Levi-Strauss examined Oedipus and Zuni by constructing a structural analysis chart of rows and columns depicting the myth variants, explaining their similarities and how those bundled variants form a logical system under which all myths can be classified. He developed a formula to demonstrate the myth structure, which included two terms and two functions of those terms. Levi-Strauss explained that an equivalence continues to exist even when the terms are inverted as long as “one term can be replaced by its contrary…[and] an inversion be made between the function and the term value of two elements.”
Response
I thought Levi-Strauss’ essay was much easier to follow and understand. I liked how Parker explained Saussure’s ideas of langue and parole and how structuralists can construct systems for virtually anything based on an instance conforming to the parameters of an overall system, so I immediately recognized Levi-Strauss’ essay as applying that theory to myth. I think myths are fun literary works, so uniquely well-crafted to both transcend time and intrigue readers of all cultures, so I enjoyed reading about the methods Levi-Strauss used to structure the system of myths. I appreciated Levi-Strauss’ note that all myths should be examined, even if they are variations of what previous researchers and scholars deemed the “true” version of a myth. To define and construct a complete myth system, I think Levi-Strauss’ inclusion of all versions of a particular myth is necessary. I had a somewhat difficult time following all of Levi-Strauss’ structural analysis, as he addressed Oedipus and Zuni, but after re-reading it a few times, I feel like I could at least attempt a structural analysis of another myth similar to the process he demonstrated.