430
PARTISAN REVIEW
that he has soared off into metaphysics-or bad poetry. Apparently, he has
returned to philosophy. But now his poetic philosophy is laced with scientific
references, and his oppositions, his axes and four-cornered analyses are oddly
reminiscent of the Parsonian framework. He has rejected all "mini-struc–
turalisms " for a "macro-structuralism ."
It
seems that this larger framework has facilitated the acceptance of
structuralism as one of the "scientific" philosophies of our century . Yet
Levi-Strauss does not seem to be aware that his questions are more' 'scientific"
than his answers . For he sidesteps the whole question of science and myth
when he talks about the ultimate and fundamental opposition of structural–
ism as represented in Hamlet's dilemma, which is at the bottom of every–
thing . He says that Hamlet has no choice between being and nonbeing : he is
eternally caught and forced to swing between ever-new contradictions until he
dies. Thus life and death, Levi-Strauss concludes, are both the fundamental
and the ultimate opposition of structuralism. This is , of course, pure meta–
physics, and as the metaphysical premises of structuralism are made more
visible, its scientific pretensions appear more blatant . In fact, his Messianic
structuralist message which appeals to the reader's belief in the structures
appears to carry religious overtones. Clearly, Levi-Strauss has come a long way
from his original' 'structural anthropology," from the structure of kinship to
the hidden connections between nature and culture, from tribal studies
to
a
unified worldview. Perhaps that is why after about seventeen years, Levi–
Strauss has returned to the study of kinship structures. Or perhaps he con–
tinues to believe that more anthropological data might bring new" converts"
to structuralism , although that would scarcely strengthen its larger theoretical
claims .
Still , even if, as I have been arguing, structuralism itself is a new myth–
ology and is not, as a rule , convincing , I do not mean to deny Levi-Strauss's
genius and his intellectual versatility. Though structuralism's complex
musical dialectic relies upon a magic wand, its failure as an all-inclusive theory
should not obscure its influence on other fields. Nor should this failure
diminish Levi-Strauss's stature or question his place in intellectual history .
I
