On Centrism and Dualism - Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

CENTRISM AND DUALISM
In accordance with some of the already introduced scholars, 40 RUBEL and ROSMAN see the
distinguishing feature of structuralism in the emphasis it places upon the relationship between
elements, rather than upon the nature of those elements themselves, consequently contrasting
structuralism from other theoretical approaches. Since these elements of structural analysis
need to be identified first, they are themselves understood as constituting analytic constructs
and not as given facts.
Even though both authors stress relationship as the most important aspect of structure, they
also emphasize that structure is nevertheless more than mere relationships. A structure
constitutes a system. A relationship is merely a part of a system (ibid.: 2). The systemic nature
of a structure lies in the fact that all elements are interrelated, hence a structure can only be
understood when it is seen in its totality. Therefore, one of the paramount premises of
structuralism is the idea of interrelated structures constituting a whole, whereby meaning is
conveyed through the relation of elements between and within these structures.
Structure is not reducible to a system: a group of elements and the relations that unite them. In
order to be able to speak of structure, it is necessary for there to be invariant relationships between
elements and relations among several sets, so that one can move from one set to another by means
of a transformation (LÉVI-STRAUSS 1994: 428 [1991: 113]).
While discussing the relationship of different structures, the authors identify hierarchy as the
constitutive feature of these relations. The relative boundedness, found as an attribute of
certain structures, can be seen as the result of hierarchy. What appears to be external to a
structure on one level, making it appear bounded, reappears as being internal to the
encompassing structure on a higher level (ibid.). 41
Just as LÉVI-STRAUSS the two authors conceive the concept of transformation as an essential
aspect of the concept of structure. They employ the concept of transformation to describe the
relationship between different structures within a single society or between structures of
different societies. Within a single society the authors claim that different structures stand in a
homologous relationship to one another. The analyst has to illuminate the transformations
which make the transition from one structure to the next possible (ibid.: 3).
With their intention of comparing different societies, RUBEL and ROSMAN apply the concept
of transformation in a way that resembles ERRINGTON’S. As per ERRINGTON, they link the
40 RUBEL and ROSMAN claim that they draw upon the theoretical writings of LÉVI-STRAUSS, LEACH and
JAKOBSON.
41 Here we encounter a perception of the concept of structure, which seems to resemble the core paradigm of
DUMONT’S perspective, viz. the idea of encompassed distinguishable levels/structures constituting a whole.
22