Structuralism: From Saussure to Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, Lacan, and Althusser

For roughly two decades — from the 1950s to the early 1970s — a single idea reorganized the French human sciences and, by extension, much of Western thought: the idea that the most varied human phenomena (language, kinship, myth, fashion, the unconscious, ideology) must be understood as systems of relations — as structures — and not as collections of isolated things, nor as products of an individual consciousness. This was structuralism: less a unified doctrine than a method and an intellectual climate, exported from linguistics to anthropology, literary criticism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism. This article follows that path, from Saussure to his heirs, up to the post-structuralist turn that pushed it to its limit.

1. The central intuition: the system before the element

Structuralism’s founding gesture is an inversion. Common sense assumes that things exist first, and relations between them come after. Structuralism claims the opposite: an element has no identity outside the network of differences in which it stands. A chess pawn is not the piece of wood but the set of moves the rules grant it; swapped for a coin, it remains the same pawn, so long as its value in the system is preserved. Meaning lies not in the terms but in the relations and oppositions between them.

Hence three typical commitments. First, the primacy of synchrony: to understand a system, one describes its state of functioning, not its history. Second, the primacy of the structural unconscious: structures operate without the subjects knowing them — a speaker need not know grammar. Third, a methodological anti-humanism: the subject is not the origin of meaning but an effect of the structures that run through it. This last thesis would prove the most explosive.

2. Saussure and the linguistic model

The source of it all is the Course in General Linguistics (1916) by the Swiss Ferdinand de Saussure — a text, it bears recalling, reconstructed by his students after his death. Saussure distinguishes langue (the social, virtual system of language) from parole (the individual act of speech) and proposes that linguistics study the former. The sign joins a signifier (the sound-image) to a signified (the concept), and this union is arbitrary: nothing naturally ties the string of sounds to the meaning.

The decisive consequence is the theory of value: a sign’s meaning is not a positive substance but results from its difference from the others. “In language,” says the Course, “there are only differences, without positive terms.” This principle — meaning as an effect of differences within a system — is the core that structuralism would transplant into every field. Saussure also glimpsed a general science of signs in social life: semiology.

3. Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology

It was the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss who turned the linguistic model into a program for the human sciences. In New York during the Second World War, he met the linguist Roman Jakobson and, through him, the phonology of the Prague Circle: the idea that the sounds of a language signify not in themselves but through distinctive oppositions (voiced/voiceless, for instance).

Lévi-Strauss applied this principle to culture. In The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), he treated marriage rules and the incest prohibition as a system of exchanges articulating the passage from nature to culture. In his analysis of myths (the four volumes of the Mythologiques, 1964–1971), he showed that narratives from distant peoples share the same deep structures of binary oppositions (raw/cooked, high/low, life/death), of which the myth is an attempt at mediation. And in The Savage Mind (1962) he argued that so-called “primitive” thought is not pre-logical: it is a science of the concrete, a bricolage as rigorous as our own. His most radical conclusion: behind the diversity of cultures operate the universal, unconscious structures of the human mind.

4. Barthes and the semiology of culture

Roland Barthes carried out Saussure’s semiological project in the terrain of everyday culture. In Mythologies (1957), he read wrestling, steak and chips, cars, and magazine covers as signs that produce ideological meaning. His key concept is myth as a second-order semiological system: myth takes an already complete sign and loads it with a connotation that passes itself off as natural. The function of bourgeois myth is to “turn history into nature” — to make what is historical and constructed seem eternal and obvious.

Later, with S/Z (1970) and the essay “The Death of the Author” (1967/68), Barthes begins to strain the limits of structuralism: the text ceases to be a closed structure to be decoded and becomes an open, plural fabric whose meaning the reader produces. It is the bridge to post-structuralism.

5. Lacan and the unconscious structured like a language

In psychoanalysis, Jacques Lacan proposed a “return to Freud” mediated by Saussure and Jakobson. His famous thesis — “the unconscious is structured like a language” — rereads the Freudian dream-mechanisms: condensation becomes metaphor; displacement, metonymy. The subject is not its own master but is “spoken” by the symbolic order — what Lacan calls the big Other, the treasury of signifiers and of the law. Inverting Saussure, he asserts the primacy of the signifier, which slides over the signified without ever fully fixing it. The ego, born of the alienating identification of the mirror stage, is split from the start. Here structuralism dissolves the illusion of a subject transparent to itself.

6. Althusser and structural Marxism

Louis Althusser carried the method into Marxism. Against humanist readings, he proposed reading Capital as the science of a structure — the mode of production as an articulated whole of instances (economic, political, ideological). Hence two radical structuralist theses: history is a “process without a subject” (it is not Man who makes it, but social relations), and ideology works through interpellation, “recruiting” individuals as subjects without their noticing. The subject, once again, appears as an effect of the structure, not its origin.

7. Foucault and the “death of man”

The work of the young Michel Foucault is often associated with structuralism — a label he rejected. In The Order of Things (1966), he described the epistemes, the systems of unconscious rules that order the knowledge of each age, and closed the book with an image that became famous: “man” as a recent invention of knowledge, about to be “erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.” Even in refusing the label, Foucault shared the anti-humanist gesture that unites the generation: from Lévi-Strauss to Barthes, from Lacan to Althusser, the decentering of the subject is announced.

8. The common thread: anti-humanism

What unites such different authors? A shared conviction that the sovereign subject of the modern tradition — the Cartesian cogito, the phenomenological consciousness, the “man” of the humanisms — is not the foundation but a product. Beneath consciousness lies language; beneath the will, the structure of kinship; beneath the ego, the signifier; beneath freedom, ideological interpellation. “The goal of the human sciences,” Lévi-Strauss wrote in a provocative formulation, “is not to constitute man but to dissolve him.” Structuralism is, in this sense, the great adversary of Sartre’s existentialism, which made the subject’s freedom its starting point.

9. The post-structuralist critique

Structuralism contained the seed of its own overcoming. At the famous 1966 conference at Johns Hopkins University, Jacques Derrida presented “Structure, Sign and Play,” arguing that every structure presupposes a “center” that escapes the play of differences — and that this demand for a fixed point is the last residue of the “metaphysics of presence.” Radicalizing Saussure’s differential principle, Derrida coins différance: if meaning arises from differences, then it never fixes itself, is always deferred, and no closed structure is possible. Post-structuralism is born.

At the same time, history exacted its toll. In May 1968, with the streets of Paris seized, a famous piece of graffiti is said to have mocked: “structures do not take to the streets.” The objection was political and philosophical: a thought that dissolved the subject and froze synchrony would struggle to think action, history, and change. The heirs — Derrida, the later Foucault of genealogy, Gilles Deleuze, Julia Kristeva — would keep the suspicion of the sovereign subject, but give thought back its movement, power, desire, and event.

10. Legacy

Though it ceased to be an avant-garde, structuralism transformed the humanities forever. It bequeathed semiotics and discourse analysis; the idea that culture is a readable system of signs; suspicion toward “natural” obviousness; and a rigorous attention to form and relations. Cultural studies, literary theory, anthropology, film theory, and the critique of ideology still work with tools forged in that workshop. Even post-structuralism, which criticized it, is intelligible only as its outgrowth. To understand structuralism is therefore to understand the common grammar of much of contemporary thought.

Essential reading

• Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (1916).
• Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (1958) and The Savage Mind (1962).
• Roland Barthes, Mythologies (1957).
• Jacques Lacan, Écrits (1966).
• Louis Althusser, For Marx (1965).
• François Dosse, History of Structuralism (2 vols., 1991–92) — the great critical history of the movement.

← Articles