Structuralism is a metatheory relating to the construction of theories. Structuralism emerged in the twentieth century as a theory of reason, language, culture, and literature.
Beyond these specifically structuralist theories, there is implicitly at least one theory of how all theories can be contrasted or applied.
Just as the term metalanguage is used to speak a language that speaks the language, metatheory is the name for a theory of theories.
As a metatheory, structuralism insists that each object of study be accepted as a structure.
According to Jean Piaget, “the idea of the structure consists of three key ideas: the idea of wholeness, the idea of transformation, and the idea of self-control” (1968 [1970], 5).
The whole is more than one sum. While a sum is a random and non-integrated set of units, a system is a structure that demonstrates a high degree of regularity (as opposed to arbitrariness) and integration.
For example, a pile of tree leaves would be a collection; a child hiding under the pile – a system.
An economic system involves many forms of transformation – for example, how labor is transformed into capital or capital – into more capital.
A linguistic system also contains possibilities for transformation of any kind – how words are transformed into sentences, sentences – into one another, and so on.
Finally, the functioning of the system is not explained primarily in terms of external factors (ie factors outside the system).
Systems are structures that demonstrate innate dynamics. They are self-moving and self-regulating structures (e.g., living organisms)
Ferdinand de Saussure’s concept of language as a system to be studied synchronically was crucial, at least for the development of structuralism. But when many of the basic assumptions of structuralism began to be tested (for example, the ability not to talk about the desire to separate diachrony from synchrony; the autonomy of the system in terms of external factors), a new metatheory emerged – poststructuralism.
Because poststructuralism is deeply suspicious of exactly what structuralism values (science and, more generally, the possibility of the theoretical network being wide enough and its gaps narrow enough to capture the essence of, say, language or culture), it is best not to treat poststructuralism as a metatheory.
Any doctrine that is so suspicious and in some cases hostile to the theory – especially to the big theory – is in danger of being misinterpreted if it is called metatheory.
Therefore, a more appropriate word for poststructuralism would be sensitivity.
Related:
