In societies described as “cold” by Claude Lévi-Strauss, the historical dimension is coded into myths, traditions and rituals. Lévi-Strauss says that ritual is an “instrument for the destruction of time”. The key to the author’s idea of the opposition of synchronicity and diachronicity is found in his work The Savage Mind, in which he talks about a never-ending struggle between these two which initiates totemic thinking. In current sociology, Levi-Strauss’ concept of reversible time is utilised by Anthony Giddens, who adapts it in his structuration theory. However the concept of synchronous (structuralist) reversible time is simultaneously the subject of a critique from the perspectives of cultural anthropology (Alfred Gell) and sociology (Barbara Adam). At the article’s conclusion, the argument is made that when Lévi-Strauss talks about cold societies, which tend to banish history from the consciousness, it doesn’t mean that he is trying to over rule the laws of logic or physics (as he is accused by Gell) but at tempting to see the world through the eyes of a specific type of society and to understand time from the perspective of a “native”. and Jiří Šubrt.
Contrary to what is often thought, the structuralist approach has never been adopted in French sociology very extensively. When speaking about structuralism in this discipline, the work of Pierre Bourdieu is generally referred to. The present paper is intentionally heading in another direction and is questioning Lévi-Straussian traces in Baudrillard’s theory of the consumer society. First, Baudrillard acknowledges being in debt to Lévi-Strauss for his conception of consumption as a language. In this perspective exchanged goods are understood as object-signs. We believe nevertheless that Baudrillard goes even further when he analyzes the phenomenon of absurd violence, bearing in mind - even he does not directly disclose it - Lévi-Strauss’ concept of “free signifier”. All the same we finally conclude that Baudrillard’s use of Lévi-Strauss is rather cursory. Despite this fact it is of interest: Thus we follow Baudrillard’s analysis and consider the problem of social criticism, which is one of the main topics of his writings here discussed. and Jan Maršálek.
The authors present their respective views on the development of the Czech post-war syntactic studies. Their approach is influenced by the fact that they were educated by the different syntactic schools: thus the paper is a combination of Prague’s and Brno´s views. V. Šmilauer´s Novočeská skladba (Syntax of Modern Czech, 1947) is understood as a source of the contemporary research of the Czech syntax. The paper describes the results reached by individual investigators as well as the results of the research teams. According to the authors´ opinion, Two-Level Valency Syntax (represented by F. Daneš and his close collaborators and reflected in the Czech Academic Grammar) and Functional Generative Grammar (developed by P. Sgall and his colleagues) form the main paradigms of the Czech syntax since 1960. Both theories incorporate the results of the classical Praguian functional approach as well as results of the generative paradigm. The authors conclude that the Prague‘s and Brno´s views on the development of Czech syntactic studies are not incompatible but rather complementary and that the methods of formal and corpus linguistics are attractive and useful for the young researchers.
Příspěvek pojednává o připravované edici Pražská škola v korespondenci, zahrnující dopisy adresované představitelům Pražského lingvistického kroužku B. Havránkovi, R. Jakobsonovi, J. Mukařovskému, V. Mathesiovi a B. Trnkovi z let 1923-1989. Dokumentární i objevný soubor představuje dopisy jednak od členů Ženevské a Kodaňské školy či plejády dalších evropských strukturalistů, jednak od českých vědců a osobností první i druhé strukturalistické generace působících v Praze., This paper deals with the forthcoming Prague School in Correspondence series, including letters addressed to representatives of the Prague Linguistic Circle, e.g. Bohuslav Havránek, Roman Jakobson, Jan Mukařovský, Vilém Mathesius and Bohumil Trnka from 1923 to 1989. This innovative documentary collection presents letters from members of the Geneva and Copenhagen schools and a pleiad of other European structuralists, as well as from Czech scholars and figures from the first and second structuralist generations working in Prague. (Translated by Melvyn Clarke.), and Překlad resumé: Melvyn Clarke
This review article focuses on two aspects of Lévi-Strauss’ ex change theory: temporal dimension and gender. First, we examine its diachronic dimension to argue that Lévi-Strauss’ exchange theory is far from being static. Its primary interest is evolutionary, regardless of how much Lévi-Strauss distances himself from evolutionism of the 19th century as a paradigm. His analyses of kinship that attempt to identify elementary structures are meant to shed light on the origins of human culture. Although Lévi-Strauss uses different methodology than other scholars interested in socio-cultural evolution, his treatment of the term homology, discussions of primatology and origins of culture suggest his deep interest in long-term process. Second, we examine the critiques of Lévi-Strauss’ analytical treatment of women as passive objects of exchange among men. Through the discussion of feminine agency, personhood, sexuality, and other forms of exchange of human beings, we argue that Lévi-Strauss’ exchange of women has to be understood in its historical context. He grants only limited agency to women but his approach is definitely not based on commodification of women. In contrast, the relational nature of persons as signs refutes such logic. We conclude that Lévi-Strauss is still a source of inspiration for anthropology regardless of the decades of post-structuralist criticism. and Daniel Sosna, Jitka Kotalová.
The aim of the present paper is to offer a new analysis of the multifarious relations between mathematics and reality. We believe that the relation of mathematics to reality is, just like in the case of the natural sciences, mediated by instruments (such as algebraic symbolism, or ruler and compass). Therefore the kind of realism we aim to develop for mathematics can be called instrumental realism. It is a kind of realism, because it is based on the thesis, that mathematics describes certain patterns of reality. And it is instrumental realism, because it pays atten-tion to the role of instruments by means of which mathematics identifies these patterns. The article concludes by offering solutions to some famous semantic paradoxes based on the diagonal construction as corroboration for this claim., Cílem příspěvku je nabídnout novou analýzu rozmanitých vztahů mezi matematikou a realitou. Věříme, že vztah matematiky k realitě je, stejně jako v případě přírodních věd, zprostředkován nástroji (např. Algebraickou symbolikou, pravítkem a kompasem). Proto se druh realismu, který chceme rozvíjet pro matematiku, nazývá instrumentální realismus. Je to druh realismu, protože je založen na tezi, že matematika popisuje určité vzorce reality. A je to instrumentální realismus, protože věnuje pozornost roli nástrojů, pomocí kterých matematika tyto vzorce identifikuje. Článek uzavírá nabídku některých slavných sémantických paradoxů založených na diagonální konstrukci jako důkaz tohoto tvrzení., and Ladislav Kvasz
Th e approach of structuralism came to philosophy from social science. It was also in social science where, in 1950–1970s, in the form of the French structuralism, the approach gained its widest recognition. Since then, however, the approach fell out of favour in social science. Recently, structuralism is gaining currency in the philosophy of mathematics. Aft er ascertai ning that the two structuralisms indeed share a common core, the question stands whether general structuralism could not fi nd its way back into social science. Th e nature of the major objections raised against French structuralism – concerning its alleged ahistoricism, methodological holism and universalism – are reconsidered. While admittedly grounded as far as French structuralism is concerned, these objections do not aff ect general structuralism as such. Th e fate of French structuralism thus does not seem to preclude the return of general structuralism into social science, rather, it provides some hints where the diffi culties may lie. and Strukturalismus přišel do fi losofi e ze společenských věd. Byly to také společenské vědy kde, v letech 1950–1970 v podobě Francouzského strukturalismu, získal strukturalismus nejširší uznání. Od té doby však jeho popularita ve společenských vědách opadla. V nedávné době však začal strukturalismus nabývat na popularitě ve fi losofi i matematiky. Ukazuje se, že tyto dvě formy strukturalismu mají na obecné úrovni mnoho společného. Otázkou pak je, zda neexistuje možnost, aby se obecně chápaný strukturalismus navrátil do společenských věd. Hlavní námitky proti Francouzskému strukturalismu – jeho ahistorismus, metodologický holismus a universalismus – jsou opětovně uváženy. Ačkoliv jsou námitky relevantní, pokud jde o Francouzský strukturalismus, nejedná se o námitky proti obecnému strukturalismu jako takovému. Osud Francouzského strukturalismu se tak nezdá být překážkou pro případný návrat obecného strukturalismu do společenských věd, spíše poskytuje postřehy, kde by se mohly vyskytnout největší obtíže.
The structuralist thought, which was at its heyday in the mid-1960s, soon became a target of criticism. However, as the article argues, at its inception, structuralism was intended more as a method rather than an all-encompassing mode of thinking. The original inspiration for structuralism came from Russian and Saussurean linguistics and, later, it was explored by Lévi-Strauss as a suitable method for anthropology and related disciplines. In this application, the emphasis is less on the structure conceived as a system of differences and more on its transformative character. Furthermore, not only the internal, but also the external relations of system are highlighted, which implies the use of comparative methods in anthropology. The possibility of studying cultural practices and symbols is enhanced when their similarities and differences are considered in terms of structures and sign-systems. The structuralist thought that denies individual agency thus appears to be a paradoxical misunderstanding of the original purpose of structuralism as a method; a science of cultural facts in their variability remains a contemporary project. and Patrice Maniglier.
This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.