Wither Structuralism?

Structuralism is a theoretical project that analyzes, not hidden meanings, but the systematic rules which govern the social formation & are encoded into social artifacts. As a structuralist, for example, Roland Barthes analyzed a wide variety of texts in Mythologies: the world of wrestling, the face of Garbo, neither-nor criticism, and so forth. [I have tried to emulate Barthes in the previous entry.] As Barthes explains, "[m]ythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it suitable for communication....myth in fact belongs to the province of general science, coextensive with linguistics, which is semiology." Semiology: the science of signs.

To be more specific myth refers to an unacknowledged series of concepts through which a culture comes to understand itself. It helps naturalize all aspects of culture: political, economic, social, etc.

However, have structuralism and semiotics/myth as concepts been written out of critical theory? In New Keywords: a revised vocabulary of culture and society structuralism, semiotics and myth don't appear.

Has the power of structuralism as a theoretical perspective withered, or have intellectuals in their desire to be up-to-date, dug it up only to discard it in favor of post-structuralism and/or postmodernism? I think the answer to this question is "yes," and I would argue that it's a loss for understanding the relationships between the exercise of power and the dominant ideology of a given social formation.

For a bibliographic essay on structuralism with many links to relevant online sources click here. And for another great web resource see this semiotics site which I found cited on Sobhan Rezaee's Culture and Communication blog.

Where in the whirl is Matt Lauer

Mythologies: I offer this brief essay as a Barthian mythology which will be followed in my next entry by a discussion of Roland Barthes' version of semiotics. Since I've never attempted this form, please accept it for what it is, an emulation of one who has greatly influenced my own research.


Matt Lauer, co-host of the Today Show, NBC-TVs AM news & entertainment show which boasts the highest ratings in its time slot, encapsulates the Ideal Male 21st century. Boy next door who made good as measured by impeccable clothing sense, beautiful former-model wife, a serious news reader and a playful soul whose Where in the World is Matt Lauer enlarges him to the status of World Citizen.

As he travels the beauty spots of the world, his back drop is his applauding fans. As metro-sexual New Yorker he's thin & neat but married so clearly, publically hetero-sexual.

He has no sharp edges, no angst and has perfected the news-readers quality of moving from human tragedy to slightly irreverent human interest seamlessly. He offers no opinions.

Unlike Hollywood celebrities, Matt Lauer invites us to share his celebrity status, reassures us when times are bad, and kids around every day whatever else happens.

Continuity, reassurance, success, desirable man, he's both a large public figure and the same as us: Matt Lauer is the fashion statement of American society. He is a norm by which we can measure ourselves and a non-judgemental friend.

Where in the whirl of American life is Matt Lauer? He exists at the circumference binding together a social formation the likes of which is as intensely personal as it is expansively global.