HEHMENEU7ICS AND STRUCTURALISM: TRUTH AND MEANING
Definition: Structuralism is the most serious challenge to all forms of classical Christian
theology, though the term is elusive and slippery. A provisional definition must be offered.
"Structuralism concerns the operation of signs within a structured system, how these signs
reciprocally condition one another, and how an underlying 'code' (cf. Saussure's langue)
determines the range of possibilities within which the signs operate." (Thiselton, E.T. Aug.
1973: 329-335) (N. Cantor, 20th Century Culture 1989)
Bibliography: Barthes, Roland, "Introduction al analyse structurale des re'cits," Communications
8.27; also his Le Degre' zero.de l Eariture (Paris, 1978), esp. 95-104. Barthes, R., et. al.
Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis (Pittsburgh, 1974) 57-84; Calloud, J. Structural
Analysis of Narrative (Philadelphia and Missoula, 1976) 47-108; Crossan, J.D., "A Basic
Bibliography for Parable Research" Semeia 1 (1974): 274; de Saussurs, F., Cours de_
linguistique generale, edition critique (Wisebaden, 1967); Gellner, E. Legitimation of Belief
(Cambridge: University Press, 1974) esp. 149-167; Gunther, Schiwy, Structuralism and
Christianity (Pittsburgh,. 1971); Guttgemanns, E; "Generative Poetics: Linguistic-Literary
Critical Foundations of a N.T. Theology" Semeia 6 (1976) 132-215; Greimas, A. J., Sernantique
structurale (Paris: Larousse, 1966); Ivie, H. Trends in Linguistics (Hague: Mouton, 1965);
Johnson, A.M. (ed), The New Testament and Structuralism (Pittsburgh, 1976), 73-96;
Jobling, D. “The Sense of The Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in The Old
Testament (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, Sheffield,. 1978);
Lane, M., ed. Introduction to Structuralism (NY: Basic Books, 1970); Patte, D. What Is
Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: -Fortress Press, 1976) 59-76; Pike, K. L. Language in
Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton,
1967) 37-72; Polzin, R.M. Biblical Structuralism: Method and Subjectivity in the Study of
Ancient Texts (Philadelphia/Missoula, 1977) esp. 54-125, on the Book of Job; Ricoeur, P.
"Biblical Hermeneutics: The Narrative Form" Semeia 4 (1975): 29-73 (his three volumes on
'narrative', University of Chicago Press are indispensable); Robins, R.H. A Short History of
Linguistics (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1967) 298-240; Thiselton, A.C.
"Semantics and New Testament Interpretation" in I. H. Marshall (ed.) New Testament
Interpretation (Eerdmans, 1977) 75-104, esp. 79-89.
Structuralism in Structure: Hermeneutics and Method
In the 19th century questions of historical origin formed the primary arena for theological
development. The scientific advancements within Darwinian evolution and uniformitarian
geology challenged the classical interpretation of the Biblical account of the origins of the world
and of life. The scientific method was extended into the arena of historiography, thus the
historical-critical method challenged the traditional account of the literary origins of the Biblical
Canon.
By mid-20th century the primary conflict between Christianity and science shifted from the
physical sciences to the social sciences. Questions have shifted from exclusive orientation to
historical origins, to the present 'structure' of things. As 'Structuralism' can be both positively
and negatively employed in assessing Biblical studies, serious students must understand the
origin, development, limitations, and consequences of this hermeneutical method. Mere
historical studies cannot provide solutions to the difficulties of contemporary cultural pluralism.
We must seek to understand modern society by exploring linguistic, social, economic and
political 'structures.' The scriptures have their origins within identifiable social structures. Crosscultural communication of the 'Gospel' demands assessment of the shaping forces at work in the
‘origins of scriptural content’ as well as the forces at work within the ‘receiving’ of the same
content.
Historically, the foundations of Structuralism are located in two major sources—the work of (1)
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) and that of (2) Claude Levi-Strauss (1908- ). Saussure
affirmed that language is based on the social conventions of the language-using community
rather than on some supposedly natural or essential relationship between language and that
which it signifies (cf. Aristotle's theory of language, logic and ontology; so-called presupposition
of Hellenization of dogma; also my Hermeneutics, Revelation and The Development of
Doctrine).
Saussure argues for the 'ontological arbitrariness' of all language conventions. This is a principle
of contemporary linguistics (cf. Wittgenstein's Language Game). The 'arbitrariness principle'
gives explanation for such linguistic phenomena as historical change in meaning, multiple
meaning, or the basic fact that different words in the world's 7000 languages and dialects may
signify the same reality.(Cf. crucial distinction between Truth-Epistemology and MeaningReference-Significance-Semantics. One critical consequence of this principle is that language is
regarded as a 'self-contained and self-justifying system.')
If language functions as a self-contained and self-regulating system, special attention must be
given to the interfacing of all the linguistic elements plus the inter-relationships with the
"objective world." Saussure declares that "Language is a system of interdependent terms (les
termes sont-solidaires) in which the value (fla yaleur) of each term results solely from the
simultaneous presence/of the others." (Saussure, p. 2597). The essential consequence is that we
must rid ourselves of an 'item-centered' or word-centered view of language. 'Meaning' is
determined by the interrelationship of similarities and differences within the system or structure.
These relationships are of two basic kinds: (1) Syntagmatic relationship to what comes before or
after it in the sequence. Saussure calls this the 'associative relationship'; (2) and the second term
is 'paradigmatic relation'; Roman Jakobson describes this in terms of metonymy (syntagmatic
relation) and metaphor (paradigmatic relation), and this in turn was taken up in the structural
anthropology of C. Levi-Strauss. (J. Sturrock, ed., Structuralism Since: From Levi Strauss to
Derrida (Oxford, 1979).
One consequence of the above for theory is that in a 'text' we have a network of relations in
which different elements of contrast or opposition can be placed within a formal structure. In
some structuralist analyses, the linguistic units may be words. But in others the meaning units
may be narrative (cf. narremes), the constituent units of myths (mythemes), or any unit of
semantic significance (semes).
The concept of paradigmatic relationship in Saussure's theory brings us to the "collective
storehouse" or repertoire of the words or other linguistic units. Saussure calls this storehouse
2
‘langue’, in contrast to the ‘parole’ of the actual individual speaker. Fundamental to all forms of
structuralism is the presupposition that the structure of 'langue' determines and controls the
availability and values of the language which is actually used at the level of 'parole' (cf. TDNT;
Barr, Sawyer, Thiselton, et. al.). It is impossible to over emphasize the importance of the above
presupposition for Biblical studies. Structuralists often claim that meaning lies in 'deep structure'
below the level of parole or message, or individual consciousness. They claim to penetrate below
'surface structure' of message to the subconscious where the underlying structure or code which
determines the shape of the message.
(Cf. concept of 'code' is used by Levi-Strauss, Greimas, Barthes, and constitutes a development
of Saussure's langue.) The central question thus forces itself upon all Biblical students—Does
preoccupation with code rather than message lead away from the central questions of meaning.
Or are we left with the conclusion that for the first time structuralists are asking the most
fundamental questions about any text? (See esp. A. C. Thiselton, "Structuralism and Biblical
Studies: Method or Ideology?" in The Expository Times (Aug 1978): 329-335; and V. S.
Poythress, "Structuralism and Biblical Studies," Journal of Evangelical/Theological Society
(Sept 1978) Vol 21-no. 3, pp. 221-37). See also: Richard Harland, Superstructuralism to Post
Structuralism (London, 1987).
Saussure also critiqued the evolutionary or historical approach to language as expressed by his
predecessors (cf. presupposition of TDNT project). This position entails the rejection of the
diachrony of language/messages. The historical ‘sitz in leben’ has nothing to do with
understanding any given text (cf. concerns of Formgeschichte, Redactiongeschichte, etc).
Saussure is concerned with the text as a purely linguistic, semantic, or textual phenomenon (cf.
the intentional meaning of the author of a text has no significant place in this theory. The
implications for any claim of inspired, authoritative, canonically closed text should be crystal
clear).
Development of Structural Linguistics:
Saussure's classic work (1916) is the historic beginnings of structuralism. In the USA, the work
of Bloomfield (1933) on the morpheme emphasized 'distribution' which was further advanced by
both Gleason-Lamb (1955) via stratificationalism, i.e. language as-strata-in relation, and Pike's
tagememics (1967), multiperspectivalism. These theories were extended by Halliday (1961) and
his systematic grammar, Harris’ (1951) transformations, and Chomsky (1957) TG (formal
system). Chomsky (1965) modified TG into generative semantics. The work of the Prague
school, especially that of Trubetzkoy (1939) developed phonology as “opposition”, emphasizing
binary features. Jacobson (1952) extended Trubetzkoy work by generalization of binary
opposition. The Copenhagen school, especially the work of Hielmslev (1953) proposed
linguistics as a deductive algebraic calculus. More recently Alan Dundes (1962) and Paul
Pawlison (1977) have approached the analysis of texts with a combination of tools arising from
Kenneth Pike's linguistic framework and Propp’s Morphology. But none of these efforts have
attracted the attention that the works of Levi-Strauss and Greimas and other French structuralists.
Structuralism is broadly characterized by three principles, exposed by Michael Lane: (1)
Totalities are explained in terms of the relations of the parts " . . . as in Gestalt psychology the
whole is more than the mathematical sum of the parts." (2) Structure that is fundamental for
3
explanation is found "below" the surface of empirical manifestation. The type of structure being
sought is usually abstract, "mechanical" and impersonal?--that is, it is the type of structure
characteristic of modern-scientific theories- structures not usually obvious to the naive observer.
(3) In structuralism, synchronic as opposed to diachronic analysis is central. Synchronic analysis
examines "the cross-section" of culture that exists at a fixed time . . . Only subordinately is it
interested in a diachronic analysis that follows the evolution and transformation of phenomena
through the course of time (Introduction to Structuralism (NY: Basic Books, 1970), 13-17).
Hermeneutics and These Three Principles:
1. What results are likely to flow from an emphasis or even an exclusive concern for synchrony
as opposed to diachrony? A crucial advantage will be the overthrow of the monopoly that
"genetic explanation" has exercised in Biblical studies (see E. Nagel's Structure of Science for a
critique of 'Genetic Explanation'). In the historical-critical approach to Scripture it has become
hermeneutically axiomatic that to explain a text is first and foremost to explain its genesis, its
origins (cf. very little such data in the Bible, so much discussion is purely theoretical).
The most critical consequence of structuralism's efforts at reconstruction of origins is a process
highly destructive of the entire fabric of the Judaeo-Christian faith. Naturalistic explanation
always wins, because to say that 'God acted in history' does not count as a real historical
explanation.
Synchrony undermines the dominance of the genetic historical approach. It allows one to focus
on the canonical text, the text as a finished product (cf. we do not have historical access to the
'process of inspiration' only the 'product.') The finished product is God's word. It must contain
an exegetically available plan or ordering center, which is The Theology of Promise (see my
Theology of Promise materials).
We must also guard against the possible negative significance of synchrony, i.e., a
disparagement of history, or even a denial of the importance of history fro the Christian faith.
The historical resurrection of Jesus is evaporated into an eternally-existing mythical
reconciliation of the binary opposition of life and death. (Cf. also repudiates the historical
incarnation as well as opens up universals for universalism and Re-incarnationism).
2. A. fundamental principle of structuralism is that the fundamental structures are to be found
'below' the surface of the empirical manifestation. Positively, this might imply the greater wealth
of meaning than mere historical-grammatical exegesis can expose (cf. Philo and the Alexandrian
School; levels of meaning). Yet the below the surface structure exposes s a unity and integrity to
Biblical texts that is not self-evident from mere surface exploration.
A fundamental disadvantage of emphasis on ‘deep structure’ can allow the interpreter to ‘read
into a text’ any meaning he chooses. Therefore, the text is not the origin of the message, but
rather the hermeneutical presuppositions of the reader or listener. The structuralist’s search for
'universals' can and often does turn into a flight from Biblical particulars.
4
3. The third principle, that of seeking to explain phenomena in terms of a 'system of relations'
(cf. Paradigms, Kuhn's Incommensurability Thesis, Popper's Demarcation Thesis). This principle
can be employed in a reductionistic fashion, as-is often the case. But the principle has shown
great explanatory power in the development of physics, chemistry, linguistics, economics,
anthropology, biology and mathematics. Structuralism has the capacity to challenge many
instances of irresponsible handling of the Biblical text. The prime example of such demotion is:
James Barr's The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961). Structuralism can also help us
appreciate what redaction critics have been trying to get at, namely the way in which narrative
can tell us not merely what happened but also give to the happening a powerful theological/
hermeneutical significance that interfaces with Biblical doctrinal instruction, without driving an
ontological wedge between language, thought, logic, truth and reality.
We must be aware of the fact that structuralism and the social sciences (sociology; psychology
and anthropology) are the greatest challenges to the final, propositional/existential inspired,
authoritative canonically structured 'Word' in the history of the Church. There can be no
supernaturally revealed Word of God from any structuralist perspective because its
hermeneutical process takes apart the meanings of the text and shows, if its naturalistic
presuppositions are left unchallenged, the purely human character of those 'meanings.' We now
possess the tools and data to critique structuralisms naturalistic presuppositions concerning the
structural scientific research of the general culture, of which the Bible is- an example of many
such human products.
Ideological Structuralism of Claude Levi-Strauss
The second major figure of Structuralism is C. Levi-Strauss. There are many who use the
methodology of Saussure and Levi-Strauss who do not subscribe to the full implications of this
ideology (cf. Propp, Greimas, et. al.). Levi-Strauss applies the method and concepts of structural
linguistics to the study of human culture and society. He sees his task as that of asking "whether
the different aspects of social life (including religion) cannot be studied with the help of concepts
similar to those employed in linguistics, and whether at bottom what determines linguistic and
social phenomena are really 'the same.' " (C. Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (E.I., MY:
1963), p. 62). (J. Culler. On Deconstructionism, Theory, Criticism (NY, 1982).
Levi-Strauss views social and cultural phenomena as 'signs.' As signs, they do not possess some
essential relation to nature, but are defined by the network of relations characterizing the 'code'
(cf. Saussure's langue) which underlies them (cf. open up the hermeneutical consequences of
Freud and Jung, as all real meaning is determined at the subconscious, i.e., non-rational, subthought, sub-linguistic, sub-logical/rational level; Thus driving' an ontological wedge between
thought/language/logic and reality/(semantics) meaning.
Levi-Straus illustrates this issue with "reference" to Trube’s distinction between phonetics and
phonology (Structuralism and Chronology) 34-35. "'The phonetic repertoire of a given language
is 'natural' but on the basic of a specific linguistic code, each language community selects (?) a
limited number of phonemenas which, while they may seem ‘natural’, are really artifacts of the
code of the language-community in question. It is the importance of langue, code, or competence
(cf. Chomsky) that makes Guttgemann’s extravagant claims about the inadequacy of classical
5
work on the New Testament (Guttgemanns, "Generative Poetics," Semeia 6 (1976): esp. 182-5;
131-25). Levi-Strauss believes that his method uncovers cultural universals that belong to the
very nature of man. Thus, behind particular myths and or customs lie certain fundamental
structures that represent fundamental characterization of human thinking (cf. basic, binary
oppositions that appear in mythical thinking, e.g. life-death, God-world; "binary oppositions
metaphors and the world of Roman Jakobson in linguistics).
The phenomenon of category formation in terms of binary oppositions has a prominent place in
expositions of structuralism in biblical studies the work of Greimas (Semantique Structurale,
1966). Du Sens (1970) expounds the thesis that a structure underlies the 'narrative' as a code
which underlies and generates the message or surface details of particular narratives (Semantique
Structurale, esp. pp. 172-191). Narrative grammar finds its way into biblical studies (egs. D. 0.
Via's structuralist work on parables, Greimas and Daniel Patte (ed.) Semiology and Parables. An
Exposition of The Possibilities Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis (Pittsburg, 1976), esp. 132). Note Hegelian/Fichtean character of the three functions of description: (1) deficiency, (2)
opposition, (3) goal. That structuralist hermeneutics is very influential in contemporary biblical
studies can hardly be denied. What is the fundamental impact of Structuralism on the study of
any text?
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Structuralist Method
Some of the crucial issues are:
(1) There is a ‘tendency’ to ignore the historical questions about texts. Central to this issue is the
distinction between ‘historical message’ and a supposedly 'a-historical code.' Later Wittgenstein
convincingly showed that " . . . the speaking of language is part of an activity, or of a form of
life." Question's about meaning, he rightly urged, relate to " . . . the whole, consisting of
language and the actions into which it is woven." (Philosophical Investigations (Oxford 3rd ed
(1967) section 7 and 23). Meaning includes historical situation and horizons of the author of the
text. This dimension of the question of the meaning of the text cannot be overlooked without loss
and distortion.
(2) Presuppositions regarding scientific methodology are clearly exposed by the Structuralists
over concern with the abstraction of the linguistic system from the particularities of history (cf.
Pike's theory of the inseparability of language and culture, see his Tagmemics and my Pike's
Theory of the Relationship Between Language and Culture). History and human life is of such a
nature that meaning cannot be explored simply in general scientific terms. Structural inquiry
must always be complemented by inquiry at the level of hermeneutics, as Paul Ricoeur claims
(The Conflict of Interpretations (Evanston, 1974) esp. 27-61; and Gunther Schiwy, Structuralism
and Christianity (Pittsburg, 1971). Schiwy brilliantly exposes the challenge of Structuralism to
Christianity. He writes "The prophetic talent consists precisely in the ability to transcend the
linguistic and conceptual categories of a system; … This is a truth which-Christianity must
defend against a structuralistic world-view which argues that man is totally at the 'mercy of the
system'” (Gunther Schiwy, Structuralism and Christianity). The history of science stands in
opposition to the Structuralist thesis, i.e., the human mind 'can' not only transcend its receiving
6
hermeneutical structures, it does in fact do it, i.e. the mind can/does transcend structure (See my
Scientific Revolutions and The Christian Faith).
(3) It is not always clear how the analysis of the code relates to the interpretation of message, if it
in fact does at all (cf. R. Barthes, 'Introduction a' analyse structurale des recits', Communications
8,27). The 'message' is not simply a by-product of a much more important code. Rather, the code
is presupposed by the particularity of the message. Of course, 'the code' may partly determine
the form of the message but not its content. The significance of this thesis for the Christian
Gospel cannot be exaggerated.
(4) However, it must be acknowledged that one might 'use' hermeneutical insights from
Structuralism, without subscribing to its ideological foundations. Even the ‘narrative grammar’
of Greimas often seems forced in its application to biblical texts, yet can throw fresh light on a
given text.
(5) Some of the exegetical achievements of Structuralism are disappointing, while the
contemporary dialogue with authors such as Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Hirsch make us aware of the
fundamental hermeneutical questions about how we approach the text. What kind of thing are we
doing when we interpret a text? What kind of meaning or level of meaning are we seeking to
grasp? How decisive are questions about the author/s intention? How far is the message
determined by the structure of the code? To ignore these fundamental questions would be to try
to do exegesis in a cultural and intellectual vacuum.
Critiquing Structuralists Strategies:
The work of Jonathan Culler suggests that the application of structuralism to literature can
involve anyone of four globally distinct strategies (Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism,
Linguistics and The Study of Literature (Ithaca: Cornell, 1975) 55-109, esp. 96-98).
(1) The first such strategy is to carry linguistics directly into the literary sphere, that is, "to use
the categories of linguistics to describe the language of literary texts." (p. 55).
(2) The second strategy exposed by Culler is that of building a semiotic theory, based on
semantics, to furnish fundamental categories for narrative discourse or other literary genres (p,
76; such is the approach of A. J. Greimas, Semantique structurale (Paris, 1966).
The third and fourth strategies both extend and transform linguistics in a metaphorical way in
order to apply it to literature.
(3) In the third strategy, the metaphorical extension is applied to a single literary work (p. 97).
(4) In the fourth strategy, linguistics is applied metaphorically not to the individual work but to
all literary works collectively. Culler summarizes: "If one postulates a global homology between
linguistics and poetics, it follows that one’s task is not to elucidate the meaning of individual
works, anymore than it is the linguist's task to study individual sentences and tell us what they
mean, but to study works as manifestations of a literary system, and show how the conventions
7
of that system enable the works to have meaning (Culler, Poetics, p. 97). Levi-Strauss' work is
also moving in this direction. Note the significance for Childe's “Canonical Hermeneutics.” This
procedure will not be concerned with the distinctiveness of Biblical revelation over against other
classical religious texts (HOW texts mean: what texts mean? must not be confused). The central
"message" of the Scriptures will be largely lost by a structuralist approach. Structuralism has
been motivated by what Herman Dooyeweerd calls "the science ideal" (A New Critique of
Theoretical Thought, 1.169-495; note also J. Ellul’s Critique of 'Structuralism' in his
Humiliation of The Word; Note also the importance of the medium of communication in Neal
Postman's Amusing Ourselves To Death).
Structuralism and Reductionism
This naturalistic/humanistic ideal is that of dominating, understanding, and controlling ‘nature’
by the use of scientific method. The positivistic model of scientific method supposedly produces
abstract, mathematical, causal, mechanical and structural models with potential for explaining all
phenomena in 'nature.' In the social sciences and in linguistics in particular, ‘nature’ includes
man himself, or at least man in some of his aspects. Though Positivism as a model of scientific
method no longer dominates the sciences, we are still surrounded by its reductionistic tendencies.
All of life is reduced to some one aspect of the world: egs. linguistic, social or economic. Then
all of that aspect is reduced to one abstract theory of the aspect. Yet, paradoxically, structuralism
seeks to multiple and ramify 'meaning' rather than to reduce it to a point, (cf. Polyvalence contra
authoritative, inspired True Doctrine which expresses Orthodoxy is apriori precluded, in favor
of multiple/pluralism of meanings, all of which are possible. This creative use of the
phenomenological method is ubiquitously present in Homiletics, Christian Education, and the
theological literature. 'Creativity' is in--'sound doctrine' is out.
Levi-Strauss tells us to look for the binary oppositions characteristic of all myths; Greimas tells
us to look for the "actantial" and syntagmatic structures characteristic of all narrative. But when
one does this is there sufficient room for dealing with the distinctiveness of each language, each
social system, each culture? Is there any room for the distinction made by Pike between the
"emic" point of view (trying to describe a cultural phenomenon as it appears from ‘within’ the
culture) and a universal "etic" point of view (trying to describe the cultural phenomenon as it is
classified in some universal system)? (cf. K. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of
The Structure of Human Behavior, (2nd ed. The Hague: Houton, 1967) 37-72). A defense of
Authorial Intentionality (Hirseh, et. al.) alone precludes reductionistic polyvalence of texts, any
text, but especially the Judaea-Christian canonical Scriptures.
James D. Strauss
8