La theory of structuralismStructural psychology, also known as structural psychology in its psychological aspect, revolutionized contemporary reflection on the human being: from the moment of its formulation, the person has been challenged in the responsibility for their conduct regarding their consciousness, their developmental abilities, and the deep structures who organize their experience.
This theory of knowledge was developed, in the field of psychology, by Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt and Edward Bradford Titchener, where the adult mind is studied through methods such as introspection, which allow the subject to delve deeper into their emotions and past experiences, in search of any change that demonstrates more information about the internal content of the person at both an emotional and psychological level.
Over time, the term structuralism expanded to other disciplines such as linguistics, the anthropology, the Literary criticism and philosophywhere it is used as a general method to analyze the structures that make human phenomena possible: language, myths, social institutions, culture, or knowledge itself.
What is structuralism?
The term structural psychology It refers to the study of the elements of consciousnessWithin the history of psychology, this approach is considered one of the first currents that attempt to study the human mind with scientific criteria, describing the basic components of conscious experience (sensations, images, feelings) and the way in which they combine.
In a broader sense, the structuralism It is a methodological approach that refers to the study of the underlying structures of human phenomena. It has a philosophical and scientific focus that is not confined to a single school of thought, and it has been applied in fields such as... cultural anthropology, the linguistics, the sociology, the Literary criticism, the psychoanalysis or certain readings of Marxism.
The main objective of structuralism is to be able to delve deeper into the human sciencesThe aim is to analyze a specific area, and this area is defined as a complete system with interrelated parts. That is, an internal quality of the phenomenon being studied is sought, considered as Meeting structurewhich in turn has meaning within the culture itself. This structure is made up of elements that can only be understood by the relaciones that they maintain with each other.
The meaning given to this structure is thoroughly studied and questioned beforehand; for this purpose, methods such as the study of behavior, language, symbols, or institutions that are part of people's daily lives are applied. The structuralist perspective focuses less on what a person says they feel and more on the rules that organize that feeling, speaking, or acting.
In the field of psychology, the adult mind is studied through the analytical introspectionIn the social sciences, structuralism focuses on describing deep structures that are not always conscious to the individuals who are part of them. Thus, in anthropology, kinship systems, myths, and forms of exchange are analyzed; in linguistics, the language system; and in literary criticism, the internal form of works.
Very common activities that do not involve stress for the patient or the subject of study are usually the material for analysis. Generally, they are daily routines and habits that the person already has implemented in their life; for example: the way they serve cereal, how they prepare other dishes, how often they attend church, how they greet or say goodbye, what words they choose to express affection or anger. All these behaviors reveal structural patterns that can be interpreted.
The novelty that structuralism presents consists of break with the naive idea of structure as it was ingrained in psychology or “conventional” philosophy. Instead of thinking of structure as something rigid and visible, it conceives of it as a set of abstract relationships that organize reality. In turn, it exposes the need to eliminate any conditioning structure that is limited to explaining everything from the perspective of immediate personal history, in order to focus on the general and supra-individual rules that order the experience.
One of the pioneers and main exponents of structuralist theory in the social sciences was the ethnographer and anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who analyzed cultural phenomena such as mythology and kinship systems using an approach inspired by linguistics. For him, social facts behave like systems of signs comparable to language.
On the other hand, the German Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, deeply focused on developing the psychological theory of mind and consciousness, considered it necessary to test his ideas in a laboratory. In one of his classic examples, he took an apple and wrote down the characteristics that, in his opinion, defined it: what the apple is like, what it looks like, what flavor and texture it has inside. He was not interested in the object as such, but in the conscious experience that the subject had of that object.
With this, he applied one of the principles of introspection, which states that any conscious experience It must be described in its most basic characteristics: colors, flavors, shapes, temperatures, tactile sensations, and so on. This ensured that the individual would be determined to apply much more effort to introspection and not just categorize an object as what it is at first glance.
Wundt
WHelhelm Maximilian Wundt He was a German psychologist, physiologist, and philosopher. He developed the first experimental psychology laboratory en Leipzig. In this city, he was a university professor of Edward Bradford Titchener, who would later propose the theory of psychological structuralism based on the experiments, essays, and theories studied together with his teacher.
Wundt is frequently associated with ancient philosophical literature and its relationship to the implementation of similar methods of introspection. Wundt makes an important clarification regarding the validity of experiences evaluated under the lens of... controlled introspection and those that have been studied under traditional philosophical currents, which in this case are called pure introspectionFor him, scientific introspection had to take place under very strict experimental conditions.
Although Wundt did not define himself as a structuralist in the sense that Titchener would, he did argue that psychology should study the immediate experienceThat is, consciousness as it is given to us, and to do so systematically. From this point of view, it is considered the priest of scientific psychology and the methodological origin of structuralist psychology.
titchener
Edward B. Titchener was a British psychologist who was a student of WWilhelm Maximilian Wundt, who would become his mentor throughout his life and encourage him to share his theory with the world. In his adult years, he moved to the United States, where he achieved greater success and where he developed his own school of thought. psychological structuralism.
It is considered the founder of structuralism in psychology. His approach is purely introspective; upon his arrival in the United States, he made the mistake of presenting his teacher as if he shared exactly the same position, which further confused the American academic community, since in that part of the world the difference between awareness e unconscious nor the nuances between Wundt's method and his own.
Wundt's reality was that he could not define introspection as a valid method for reaching the unconscious, since he understood introspection only as conscious experience under controlled conditions, without external influences that could contaminate it. Titchener, however, systematized and radicalized this method, seeking to break down all conscious experience into its smallest elements.
Titchener classified structures according to observable elements or reactions deemed valid for inclusion in science. Any other reaction considered a present phenomenon but whose origin or validity could not be precisely determined simply had to be discarded from scientific explanation. From his perspective, psychology should strive for the precision of... natural Sciences, with clear definitions and systematic observations.
Characteristics of structuralism
Structuralism, both in its psychological aspect and in its broader dimension within the human sciences, rests on a series of features that define it as a method and as a theoretical approach. Among its main characteristics, the following stand out:
- Comment: It is present in all study processes and is fundamental for determining the behavior of the patient or subject based on their past experiences. In psychology, observation is combined with introspection; in anthropology or sociology, it is carried out on social practices, rituals, or discourses. It is important that this observation does not interfere at any time with the individual's own introspection or with the natural functioning of the structure being studied.
- Language as a system: This current considers the language as a system of signs where each element acquires meaning through its relationship with others. It is not dissociated from any element as a cohesive whole. This idea comes from the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure, for whom language is a Meeting structure synchronous, independent of individual speech variations.
- Descriptive approach: The individual's behavior is studied under introspection in order to perform a accurate description of each process, change, and experience it undergoes. In the social sphere, structural analysis also describes the internal relations of an institution, a myth, or a cultural practice without reducing them solely to their history.
- Inductive method: In many cases, the experience of the environment or historical context is disregarded as a primary explanation, and a theory is constructed from the analysis of the internal structure of the object of study. From the observation of multiple cases, general rules that govern the system are inferred.
- Structural analysis: Terminology is used that is adaptable to the needs of the individual or the phenomenon being studied. This requires specifying levels of analysis (superficial and deep) and defining concepts according to hierarchical units. In linguistics, for example, phonemes, morphemes, and syntagms are distinguished; in anthropology, kinship structures, myths, and rituals.
- Background: Like any school of thought or field of study, it has antecedents. In this case, structuralism draws on the influence of existentialism and the Marxismnot so much as philosophies to which it adheres, but as currents of thought against which it takes a position. It also draws on previous developments in mathematics, biology, Gestalt psychology, and psychoanalysis, where notions of form, structure, or system were already being used.
- Methodological perspective: Although the method takes into account philosophical theories and ramifications, this does not mean it can be categorized as a simple, closed school of thought. Rather, it should be implemented as methodological perspective for the study of human behavior and social realities, applicable to very diverse objects: languages, institutions, literary works, symbolic systems.
- Context and relationships: Structuralism arises in dialogue with concepts of Marxism and the functionalismSharing with them the idea that human phenomena form organized systems. However, unlike historicist currents, structuralism prefers a more analytical approach. synchronous, focused on internal relations rather than historical evolution.
- Structuralism and literature: In this art, structuralism seeks to study each work as a structured wholeThe analysis focuses on narrative units, characters, time periods, points of view, and their relationships, rather than isolated thematic content. This allows for the comparison of works from different periods and cultures based on their underlying structures.
In addition to these general characteristics, structuralism upholds some fundamental principles: awareness as the main object of study in psychology; the division of the mind into basic components (sensations, images, feelings); and the idea that the organized combinations These elements produce the complex experiences we live through.
The psychology of consciousness
To delve deeper into the study itself of psychology of consciousnessStructuralism is based on applying a series of research and evaluation methods that seek to accurately describe internal experience. Unlike behaviorism, which focuses on observable behavior, psychological structuralism aims to answer questions such as: how are thoughts and feelings formed? sensations, what minimum elements make up the perception or how we experience a emotion or thought.
Introspection
Titchener used the introspection as the main method of study, with the objective of accurately determining all the components of consciousnesswhich becomes individual according to the needs of each person. For him, introspection was not a free reflection on oneself, but a highly controlled procedure in which subjects were trained to describe their experiences in as much detail as possible.
He proposed that the state of consciousness can be turned into a method of immediate knowledgeProvided it was analyzed rigorously, the person had to observe their sensations, emotions, mental images, and thoughts, and express them as precisely as possible, avoiding personal explanations or theories about them. The aim was to describe, not to interpret.
Unlike Wundt's method of introspection, which was relatively shorter and focused on immediate responses to controlled stimuli, Titchener's was a meticulous processStrict orders were imposed to develop the study on self-awareness, in order to present a much more complete and detailed introspective analysis. Participants had to become accustomed to analyzing their own experiences almost as if they were observing them. slow motion.
Each examination consisted of confronting the patient with an object or stimulus (visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory), without denying its origins, classification and everyday use, but asking them not to think of the object as a whole, but in terms of the elemental sensations that it produced. Subsequently, the person should be able to name or describe the characteristics of the object in a state of introspection: colors, intensities, shapes, textures, temperatures, associated affective nuances, etc.
The only condition imposed on the patient was not to mention the object nameso that he could delve deeper into its other characteristics. For example, instead of saying “I see a table,” he should describe “a flat, rectangular, brown surface with four vertical support points and a cold, smooth feel.” With this, Titchener was trying to avoid misinterpretations and focus on the pure elements of the experience.
Elements of the mind
Titchener classified each of the elements of the mind in three main groups: elements of perception (sensations), elements of ideas (images) and elements of emotions (feelings). These could be divided according to several properties: quality (type of experience: color, smell, heat), intensity (force with which it is presented), duration (time that is maintained), clarity (level of attention) and extension (in the case of visual or tactile sensations, the surface or volume they occupy).
Images and sensations can vary in clarity, so some dominate consciousness while others remain in the background. According to Titchener, these experiences can be broken down into a set of elemental sensations, in combination with basic feelings of liking or disliking.
These three elements mentioned above lead to the conclusion that each feeling It is elementary. It means that all reasoning, complex thought, or mental imagery can ultimately be broken down into sensations, which are perceived solely and exclusively through introspection. The task of structural psychology is, therefore, to develop a kind of “periodic table"of the elements of the mind."
Interaction of elements
The second fundamental premise in Titchener's theory is that each of the mental elements interact with others to create a complex conscious experienceJust as in chemistry molecules are formed from the combination of atoms, in consciousness thoughts, memories, decisions, or intense emotions arise from the organized combination of basic sensations, images, and feelings.
This combination is not random: it follows certain association laws and organization that structural psychology seeks to uncover. In this way, it attempts to move from an inventory of isolated elements to an understanding of the mental structures that give rise to psychic life as we experience it.
Physical and mental reactions
Titchener's main interest was being able to relate the physical processes with the conscious experiencesHe sought to understand what physiological changes a person undergoing introspection experienced and how these correlated with variations in their sensations and feelings. The British psychologist maintained that each physiological reaction (changes in breathing, muscle tension, facial expression) was closely related to conscious experience and that, without these reactions, the introspective process itself could be considered impoverished.
This led him to argue that psychology should imitate, as much as possible, the scientific method of the natural sciences: controlled experiments, rigorous measurement, repeatable procedures, and the use of clear technical language. Although the structuralist method of introspection was later criticized for its subjectivity and the lack of reliability between observers, represented a decisive step towards considering that the mind could be a legitimate object of science.
Structuralism in literature
El literary structuralism He analyzes the works as a method of study, not so much to learn about the author's biography or the historical context, but to unravel their internal structureA highly critical structuralist will conduct an in-depth examination of each paragraph or fragment of the text. The literary work can belong to any genre (novel, poetry, drama, essay); the important thing is to analyze the formal organization of the work, rather than its thematic content, which in this type of analysis is considered secondary.
The aim of this activity is to be able to compare the work with structures belonging to other eras and cultures to detect links or relationships with what is being analyzed. This is how they can be discovered recurring plots, types of characters, narrative schemes or rhetorical figures that are repeated, which allows the construction of general models applicable to multiple texts.
Along these lines, authors like Roland Barthes used the structural method to study narratives, myths, advertising, and the media, conceiving each of these phenomena as systems of signs organized according to their own rules. Literature ceases to be seen solely as an individual expression and comes to be understood also as part of a larger whole. structural network of speeches.
Structuralism as a methodological approach
Beyond psychology, structuralism has established itself as a methodological approach which has profoundly influenced the orientation of the social sciences and other areas of culture. This current arose as a rejection of orientations of a historicist y subjectivist, and it is part of the debate on the epistemological status of the human sciences.
The theoretical core of this approach is defined by the notion of Meeting structure, understood as a everything organized which can only be understood through the analysis of its components and the function they fulfill within the whole. A structure is not simply the sum of isolated elements; it is a system of relaciones relatively stable, endowed with self-regulation and possible internal transformations.
The concept of structure is used in very diverse fields: in mathematics (group structure, homomorphism), in Gestalt psychology (notion of form), in Physics, logic o biologywhere it is often equated with the idea of a system. In the social sciences, it had already been used implicitly by Marx (with the concepts of infrastructure and superstructure) and by Freud (with its structural model of personality: ego, superego, and id).
However, the notion of structure on which the structuralism in the social sciences fundamentally part of linguistics Ferdinand de SaussureFor Saussure, language should be studied as a system of signs, and language is understood as a synchronic structure in which each element acquires value through its opposition to and relationship with the others. The structural method in linguistics aims at the construction of abstract models capable of explaining the phenomena of language, constituting almost as an "algebra" of language.
Following its successful application in linguistics, structuralism began to spread to other social sciences. In cultural anthropology, sociology, literary criticism, philosophy of knowledge, and psychoanalysis, the idea of structure became a central tool for analyzing complex human realities without reducing them to individual biographies or linear histories.
Saussure, language and structure
In the study of language, Saussure established a fundamental distinction between language y speechLanguage would be a sign system shared by a community, independent of specific speech acts; speech would be the individual use of the language by the speakers. This difference allowed us to think of language as a underlying structure that does not depend on each particular subject.
Based on this distinction, the semiology (the name that Saussure proposes for the general science of signs) can conceive of the whole of language as a structure whose study must be carried out in a way synchronousLanguage thus appears as a system of relations in which knowledge of the system allows for the recognition and understanding of its elements. Structuralism inherits from Saussure this idea that structure precedes for individual use and makes it possible.
Building on these foundations, linguists such as Martinet, Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, the Prague School, and the structuralist schools of Copenhagen and New York (with Bloomfield, among others) extensively developed the structuralist method in linguistics. Their influence would later extend to Lévi-Strauss in anthropology, Barthes in literary criticism, Lacan in psychoanalysis, Foucault in philosophy of knowledge, and Piaget in genetic psychology.
Claude Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology
To Claude Lévi-Strausssocial phenomena have the character of signsKinship systems, marriage rules, forms of exchange, myths, and rituals function as a kind of the language which allows communication, often unconscious, between individuals and social groups.
Therefore, Lévi-Strauss can extend the structuralist method of linguistics to cultural anthropologyHis method consists of: observing the facts from a synchronic perspective, considering the set of elements in their reciprocal relationships, and formulating hypotheses capable of revealing the transformation rules from that structure and build a model that represents the deep structure and unconscious for the members of the studied community.
In this approach, linguistics acts as a model in a twofold sense: on the one hand, it offers a rigorous methodological treatment of social and cultural facts; on the other, it allows these phenomena to be treated as comunication systemThe goal is not just to describe customs, but to discover the structural rules that organize them, beyond the awareness of individuals.
Other structuralist developments
The structural method was adopted and transformed by numerous thinkers. Jacques Lacan He reinterpreted Freud's psychoanalysis, conceiving the unconscious as a linguistic structure; language would be the condition of the unconscious and, at the same time, the unconscious would have the structure of language. Michel Foucault He applied the structural approach to the study of knowledge, proposing concepts such as episteme to describe the ways in which discourses are organized in different eras.
In philosophy, authors such as Foucault, Deleuze, or Derrida, although many of them already develop perspectives poststructuralistsThey engage critically with the legacy of structuralism. In sociology, the structural-functionalism of authors such as Parsons and Merton incorporates some structural intuitions, while in genetic psychology Piaget uses the idea of structure to describe the stages of cognitive development.
As a consequence of its anti-historicist stance and the centrality it gives to impersonal structures, structuralism has often been accused of methodological antihumanismSome authors even speak of the “death of man,” in the sense that the individual subject ceases to be the explanatory center of phenomena, which come to be understood as effects of universal structures (of language, of kinship, of power, of symbolic production).
Structuralism in contemporaneity
Structuralism profoundly changed the contemporary life of the average adult and, more generally, the way we understand human beings. With the arrival of this theory in the daily lives of those who implemented it, the human sciences They flourished remarkably, gaining their own method, distinct from that of classical empirical sciences, but equally rigorous in their objective of discovering laws and structures.
At a certain point, history and culture acquired a new meaning. The individual ceased to be seen solely as an isolated protagonist and came to be understood as part of a larger whole. structural networks of language, norms, symbols, and relationships. This completely transformed the strategies of the academic system and the ways of addressing phenomena such as identity, power, family, gender, or religion.
Human behavior is no longer governed solely by prejudices or aesthetic values lacking scientific basis. Now, in many schools of thought, the importance of introspection And the awareness of the structures in which we are immersed has gained sufficient prominence to allow individuals to take greater responsibility for their sensory, emotional, and social experiences. Understanding the structures that condition us It opens the door to transforming them or, at least, to relating to them in a more lucid way.
Although classical structuralism is no longer strictly applied in psychology or the social sciences, its legacy remains very much present: the idea of analyzing human phenomena as structured wholesThe focus on internal relationships rather than isolated elements, the search for deep rules, and the conviction that the mind and society can be studied with systematic methods have decisively influenced subsequent trends.
Understanding structuralist theory, its focus on consciousness, language, and the deep structures that organize society, allows for a better appreciation of both its contributions and its limitations, and offers a solid framework for further exploration of how it builds the mindhow cultures are articulated and how our most personal experiences are permeated by systems that, often, we do not perceive immediately.