Parsons 1990 is an important paper, dealing with many subtle issues concerning structuralism .
In the wake of structuralism and poststructuralism, to write of literary personhood is no simple thing.
Until the 1960s this remained the intellectual agenda of U.S. anthropology, which largely ignored the emergence of both functionalism and structuralism in Europe.
But something had happened to semiology and structuralism in those ten years, which, as you have surely reckoned, included 1968 and 1970.
There was an immediate affinity between the two, since in France structuralism represented a revolt against the existentialist idea of the self.
Just as structuralism dispensed with history, so it also had no place for the reader in the production of meaning.
Poststructuralism is beyond structuralism and focuses on ‘social discourses’ that shape meaning within the reader's mind.
Indeed, if structuralism has taught us anything, it is that humans impose their sense of opposition on a world of continuous shades of difference and similarity.
In its pages, Krauss and her colleagues reformulated the critical program of Minimalism in the language of French structuralism .
Critics countered that Jakobson's structuralism was doubly dangerous because it could be confused with the real thing.