8/3/2019 589485

1/15

The Structural Factor in Systems of CommunicationAuthor(s): Varda LeymoreReviewed work(s):Source: The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 421-434Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/589485 .

Accessed: 09/02/2012 02:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with

JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589485?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/589485?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschoolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

8/3/2019 589485

2/15

VardaLeymore

T h e s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r i n s y s t e m s o f* @communlcatlon

ABSTRACT

The paper reports the results of a structuralinvestigation into thenature of a competitive communication system with particularreference to advertising.It begins by outlining briefly the relevant principles of struc-turalism and the methodological tools that follow from them. Themethod is then illustrated, using all the multi-brand campaignsofone product field, in this instance, baby foods. It shows that theprocess of decoding results in an underlying structural definitionof a binary type. Similarbinary structureswere obtained when themethod was employed on a large number of both static (press) anddynamic (television) advertisingcampaigns. This seems to confirmthe key claim of structuralism,namely, that underlying the greatheterogeneity in the system of appearances, there are a limitednumber of structuringrules or unifying principles.The paper discusses the nature of the structures and a numberof related theoretical issues stemmingfrom them. Morespecifically,the underlying structural definitions in advertising invariablyinvolve a formula which equates the use and the non-use of theproduct with the greatuniversaldilemmas of the human conditione.g. Good and Evil, Happiness and Misery, Life and Death. Per-suasion by advertising,therefore, operates as an unconscious mech-anism of threat and promise. Second, a true ccfmmunicationsystem, i.e. one that is capable of conveying meaning, mustpossess an underlying structure. Such a structure is indispensableto the understanding of the message. A series of related com-munications which do not form a system are at best cataloFes,and at worst fragmentary pieces from an unknown jigsaw puzzle.Third, the structural definitions vary in their ability to bringabout the desired action on the part of the recipient of the com-munication.

'Who said what to whom by what means and with what effect'The BritishJournalof Sociology Volume33 Number3 September1982O RK.P. 1982 0007 1315/82/3303-0421 S1.50

421

8/3/2019 589485

3/15

422 VardaLeymorehas been extensively analysed.The general thrust of the enquiriesconcerned the four great manifestationsof the process of com-munication,namely, the source, the message,the receiverand theimpact. The road opened to different approacheswith the greatstrides made by Noam Chomsky n linguisticsand Levi-Straussnsocial anthropology.The origins of this article are rooted in structuralism.This es-sentially means that one seeks to understandcommunication nterms of some governingprinciples rather than specific contents.The principles must fulfil one demand only: that they be truewhenever the set of conditions for which they have been formu-lated occur.I will first outline the set of conditions,which define the natureof the communicationsystem I have in mind. This possesses thefollowingcharacteristics:(a) The contents of the system are goal-directed, .e. the systemis not freewheeling. t has a purpose o accomplish.Morespecifi-cally, the contents are used as a weapon in a competitivesituation, with the express intent of achieving a goal. Para-mount examplesare advertising nd election campaigns.(b) Following from (a), the sources of communicationsare varied,but the audience o whom they are addresseds the same.(c) As a result of (a) and (b), often, but by no means always, theresult of the competition is zero-sum,a gain of one is the lossof the other. This is certainly true of election campaignsandof many marketing situations. But in non-mature markets,for instance,where growth potential has not been fully realized,intensive campaigningmay result in an overallexpansion,there-by creatingmore for all competitors.(d) The system of communicationconsists of a very largenumberof messages.(e) The internal communicationshave to compete for attentionwith messages and circumstancesexternal to the system ofcommunication nder nvestigation.(f) The mediasourcesare pressand television.

The system of communicationI have in mind is, thus, one inwhich rivals seek to persuade. In the final analysis, merit is notjudged by the joy of discourseor the beauty of the imagery,but bythe stark facts of winning or losing. I will use advertisingas anexample hroughout, ince this was the sourceof my material.'THOUGH THIS BE MADNESS, YET THERE IS METHOD IN 'T"The essence of stiocturalismas a scientific approach s rooted in thebelief that underlying the endless permutations and numerous

8/3/2019 589485

4/15

The structural factor in systems of communication 423explicit manifestations, here is a limited and bindingset of rules.There is order in the seeming chaos. Nothing is haphazard.Evenin areaswhere freedomseems boundless, it is nevertheless isnitedto an act of choice among permissiblealternatives.For instance,the arsenalof words in a languagemust be ordered n a prescribedmannern order o conveymeaning.Whilethere is little resistanceto the concept of innateprogram-ming as far as physical growth is concerned, the idea that thistheoreticalperspective ould be extended nto mental,psychological,social or economicdevelopments, at times,brandedasdeterminismand reductionismof the worst type. In these more emotionallyloaded spheres it is safer, one instinctivel feels, to depend oncommonsense. To attributeultimatepowerto largelyunknownbutcontrolling principlesof organizationis a dangerousdelegation.Thus,Behaviouristearningheoryattributes he capacityfor languageacquisition-the most universal haracteristic f the humanspeciesmentalcapabilities-to aping. To the question,how do people learnto speak, comes the swift answer:by copying their instructors. twas Chomskywho raised he simpleproblem: f language cquisitionis foundedon emulation,how is it possiblefora two year-old hildto'invent' sentences he has never heard before, though people willreadilyagree that (a) this happensregularly,and (b) that the childcan giveno accountof how he cameto pronounce uch linguisticallyaccuratesentences.2Other questionsarise too: how does it happenthat a young, two or three yearsold bilingualchild nevermixes thetwo languages,providedthat, duringthe processof acquisition, hespeakersof the two languages dhere o themconsistently.Moreover,he is able to translatefreely fromone language o another,and allspeakershe meets areinstantlyallocated o one or the otherlanguagecategory,in spite of the fact that he has no conceptionwhatsoeverof whata language s. In a differentfield, Levi-Straussemonstratedthat the exchangeof women follows certainrules,thoughno one ofthose most emphaticallynfluencedby theserulescould saywhattheywere.3 And again, in his analysisof systems of mythology, Levi-Strausswas able to show how these systems were designedto re-inforcecertain fundamental ocialvalues, thoughto those who toldthem they were but wonderful acred egends.4Briefly, structuralismmaintainsthat (a) any system of cc)m-munications organized ccordingo specificprinciples;(b) These principlesare unconscious,in spite of the fact that theyare constantlyand rigorouslyapplied;(c) The system of appearances, he contents of the surfacecom-munications-the myths in mythology,the commercialsn advertis-ing, the public addresses n political campaigns-are regarded s acode that must be decipheredin order to reveal the underlyingstructuringules;

8/3/2019 589485

5/15

424 VardaLeymore(d) The decodingprocess follows three steps. The first involvestheidentification of the constituent parts, otherwise known as theelementary egmentsof the system, by no meansa simpletheoreticalissue. These are defined as the relevantminimal meaningfulpartsbelonging to the communication ystem under investigation.Theyare the phonemes in linguistics or the mythemes in mythologics.Second, it is a fundamentalcontention of structuralism, rawingupon linguisticsand other disciplines, hat these elementary egmentsfall into a consistent pattern of binary oppositions. These aredimensionsof the form Night and Day, Rich and Poor, Black andWhite, High and Low, Man and Woman.The concept of the binaryopposition s widely utilized in its pure form (A and NOTA or O and1) in logics, linearalgebra,computersciences. In the social sciencesthey are not so readily exploitable,but with some qualifications ndamplifications they can be used.S Third, once identified thesebinary oppositions can be grouped nto a conlprehensive ystem ofrelationships.To borrow perforce a technical expression,they arecapableof formingparadigmaticelationships.These are associationsby virtue of a shared function. In a particular entence, all wordsthatcan serve, or instance, he function of a noun, form paradigmaticrelationshipswith each other. Since they serve the same functionthey can never appear together. If trousersand skirt are garmentswhose function it is to cover the bottom half of the body, theycannot (usually) be worn together.To cover one head, one type ofhat must be selectedat any particularmoment n time.6In other words, one may be able to discovera formulawherepairsof oppositions could be grouped nto a system of relationships, .e.a structure,by virtue of the fact that all the elements on the 'left'have the same function, and all the elements on the 'right'have thesame function which is converse o the one on the left. For instance,Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings is undoubtedly one of the mostcomplex literary inventions of modern times. At a risk of a grosssimplificationone may ask: is there a principleaccording o whichsuch diverse constituent elements (selected at random) might beclassified:Bilbo, Frodo, a Black Rider, Gandalf,Gollum, AragornOrcs, Hobbits, Mordor,Saruman,Trolls, The Dark Lord, The Ring,The Dead Marshes,Elves, Shelob, The Shire.I would suggest hat allfall into tvzo mutually opposing categories:the good and the evil.By means of this single dimension every character,as indeed anyanimatedand unanimated object', can be classified n The Lord ofThe Rings. The pairsare not random.For instance,Gandalfand notSaruman s the opposite of the Dark Lord. Saruman s the mediatorbetween the two since he is good turned evil. It may thereforebesaid, that the binary dimensiongood-evil s one axis, though by nomeans the only axis, in terms of which all the events and charactersin the book could be defined.

8/3/2019 589485

6/15

Thwetructural factor in systems of communication 425In termsof structuralistheory one will maintain hatthe myriadof manifestationsn the systemof appearancesmay be classified n

pairs of binary oppositions,and that in turn all these pairs arepermutationson one or more basic structuraldimensions.In thesame way that a simple grid of 2X2 can produce four differentcombinations,a more complex grid sharplyincreasesthe numberof possibilities.But howevercomplexandvariedthe manifestationsmay be, they are still but differentand finite expressionsof theirunderlyingdimensions.7This paperdoes not intendto debatethe meritsandshortcomingsof structuralism. assumethat the approachhas some validityandproceedto explore ts implicationsor a highlysophisticatedmoderncommunication ystemof the type describedabove.I pose only onequestion: were structuralismrue, where does it lead us? In theevent, I believethe answers o be sufficientlyexcitingto warrant n

* aexposltlon.

THE METHOD APPLIED

For reasonsof pragmaticconveniencemy own empiricalevidencecomes from advertising. t covers two types of advertising: taticand dynamic,namely magazineand televisionadvertisements.Thefirst includesall the advertisementsf five productareasappearingin weekly magazinesduringa period of one year. The televisioncommercialscover three product areas througha period of fouryearseach.To decodethe extensivenumberof advertisements, methodologyhad to be developed. It drawsheavily on set theory, structurallinguisticsand structuralanthropologyand, essentially,providesatool which enables one to 'travelback' or transform,from thenumerousmanifestations,which form the advertisingsystem ofappearances,o the fundamentaltructural imensionswhichcontrolall suchmanifestations.8The analysisfollowedfoursteps. First,the constituentunitswereidentifiedand recorded.Sinceadvertisings notoriouslyrepetitious,redundantelementswere eliminated.Second,pairsof binaryoppo-sitions were sought and grouped together. Third, paradigmaticrelationshipsamongall the pairshad to be established.And fourth,areductionoperationwasperformedo reveal he exhaustive ommondenominator f all the paradigmaticelationships.9An example may clarify matters. On the surface level, staticadvertisingorbabyfoodsexplores,by meansof verbalandgraphicalillustration, he themesof happiness motherandbaby)andgrowth.It also states variousfacts about babiesand theirspecialnature.Itexaminesthe wayin whichbabyfoodssatisfycertainbasicdemands.

8/3/2019 589485

7/15

426 VardaLeymoreIt describes the versatile nature of the advertisedproducts. Theadvertisements raisethe manufacturers s knowledgeable,wise andhygienic. It follows, therefore, that they are both competent andcapable of offering the mother the confidence and reassurance hemay require. Frequent allusions are made to the baby's need forvariety and balanceddiet. It is explained hat these two are essentialfor his healthy development.Diet, it appears, s not only vital to hisgeneral well-being, it also has a lasting effect on the relationshipbetweenmotherand child.Every communication system resorts to a certain amount ofsynonymousrepetition n order o establish he messagemore firmlyin the audiencemind. This is tantamount o saying that the level ofredundancy s high. A first step towards abstractiondemandstheelimination of such repetitious statements. Havingdone so all theclaims can be presentedas a function of each other in the followingmanner:

BALANCE= f(VARIETY)GROWTH= f(VARIETY,BALANCE)HAPPYBABY = f(VARIETY,HAPPYMOTHER)HAPPYMOTHER= f(CONFIDENCEN THE RANGE)VARIETY = RANGEOFFERED

I have done so far nothing except getting rid of the obvious rep-etitions and arranging he remainingelements in the relationshipswhich the advertisements laim for them. At this stage, however,it becomes clear that a few straightforward lgebraic ubstitutionsperformedon the above equations will reduce all the attributes othe rangeof baby foods.There is perhapsnothing striking n this result, since the wholeobject of advertisings to inducepurchaseof some productor other.Havinggrantedthis obvious fact, two commentsare in order. One,the ultimateequalityof the productrangewith all the claimsmade srevealed not on the surface level but on the underlyingstructurallevel. The surface evelmerelyclaims omesuchthingsas 'the happiestsounds come from a baby fed on Heinz'. The equationdrawnaboveis the ultimate messagewhich the economy of the mind distillsfromthe many many claims made in their variousconfigurations.Two, Ivery carefullyreferred hroughout o the product range,not to anyindividual brand in the product area. The final message mprintedupon the consumermind is a result of all the advertisements ctivein the product field, not of any individual ampaign or any specificbrand.l Morewill be said about this shortly.To return o the exampleabove,the seriesof paradigmaticelation-ships among the elements may be summarizedn the followingchainof binaryoppositions:

8/3/2019 589485

8/15

Thestructuralactorin systemsof communication 427BABYFOODS: NOTBABY FOODS- HAPPINESS : UNHAPPINESS-- GROWTH : DECAY -

- VARIETY : UNIFORMITY- BALANCE : IMBALANCEwhere: means 'is to', and means slike'.

The constituents in this paradigmare all membersof the non-redundantset. Very little informationwill be added by includingfurtherelementssuch as 'delight'and 'sadness', development'and'stagnation'etc. But though the obvious repetitions have beeneliminated,the remainingnon-redundantlementsconstitutenever-theless aspectsor variationson one fundamentalheme.I termed tthe ExhaustiveCommonDenominator nd t constitutes he structuraldefinition of all the advertisements dvocatingbaby foods. In this

* * @partlcuar caselt 1S:BABY FOODS: NOTBABY FOODS-LIFE: DEATH

To borrow yet again from linguisticstheory, in the paradigmaticrelationshipabove, LIFE is the signifier of BABY FOODSandDEATHis the signifierof NOT BABY FOODS,a strong doubleedgedmessage.In summary,while manifestlybaby food advertisementsofferthese productsfor a varietyof good and worthyreasons:nutrition,balance, growth, hygiene etc., the underlying evel, the ultimatemessage decoded in the consumermind, equates the use of theproductwith life and growthand their non-usewith the threatofdeathand stagnation.This is a powerfulmessagendeed,especially o sinceit is targetedso pointedly at the core of the greatestfear all mothersshare.Ofcourse it is unthinkablefor any advertiser n his right mind todeliberatelyutilize such a theme. The advertisersmerely set outto describea productin some attractive ermsthat seem relevant oits content and potentialuse. And most emphatically, he scoresofaccount executives,copy writersand occasional deasoriginatorsntheirdiverseadvertising gencies,havein no way consciouslycollab-oratedto producethis message, houghundoubtedlythey areawareof each other'scontributions o the field. And yet it is there,and itis there by virtue of the fact that it was deciphered rom all theadvertisementsn the area, a product of a collective though un-conscious mind, labouringthroughmany minds each producingafew fragments f theultimatedesign.Other campaigns ieldedsimilar esultse.g.WASHING OWDERSis to NOTWASHING OWDERSike GOOD s to EVIL;BUTTERto MARGARINEs like PEACE o WAR;FROZENVEGETABLESto NOT FROZENVEGETABLESs like CULTUREo NATUREandso on.ll Throughout he processof data accumulation, lassification

8/3/2019 589485

9/15

428Vardaeymore

andecodinghe writer has become increasinglypersuaded hat,

ashal-espeareo succinctly stated, there is methodin the mad-

ness.twould appear hat (a) underlyingany systemof advertising

theres a limited number of structuraldimensions,often onlyoneorwo, in termsof which the wholesystemcanbe exhaustively

defined;b) these dimensions nvariablyare the greatuniversals f

theumanind. The ExhaustiveCommonDenominators always

aasicilemma,an archetype,of the humancondition.The idea

thatdvertisingayservea deeper unction n modernsocietiesthan

thatf somewhatdespisedormof commercialrt,maybe startling,

but touldappearo be true.However, hissubjectmeritsa separate

. * .dlscusslon.

IMLICATIONIwishow to returnto a differentaspectof what

hasbeen saidsofarndwhich is yet to be spelt out clearly.A basic

questioncon-frontingny structuralanalysisconcernsthe nature

of the system:wherere the boundariesdrawn.In structuralism

his questionisevenore of the essencesince the whole methodology

dependsonaotalisticpproachdemandinghe

availabilityof all the fragmentsbelongingo the system.In otherwords,structural nalysiscannotsuccessfullye carriedout unless the subject of

investigation s. * *

@presentedn ltSentlrety.Inmy previous omments havealreadyndicated hatin advertis-

inghe minimal meaningfulsystem of communications all the

advertisementsorall thebrands hatcomprisea competitiveproduct

field.t follows that hundredsof advertisementsorone brandonly,

sayersilin the productfield of washingpowders,BritishAirways

amonghe airliners,or Toyota amongvariousmakesof cars,will

neverorm a lawful communicationsystem. Furthermore, llthe

numerousdvertisementsor brandsof butter-a productfieldwith

intensivennercompetition-also donot formavalidcommunication

system.n the lattercase,only all the advertisementsorbutterand

margarine,teaand coffee) will form one communicationystemby

virtueof being the competingsubstitutesaroundwhich the com-

munications organized. n a differentvein, a structuralnalysisof

therecent campaigningof one presidentialcandidaten the tJSA

canneverconsistof say all the publicpronouncementsmadeby him

alone,evenif he is the sole subjectof the investigation.The only case in which a campaign or a singlebrandcan be a

viablecommunicationsystem is when the singlebrandis one of

two things: (a) It equalsthe whole productfield,as when a new

productis launchedfor the firsttime andhasnotyet differentiated

into several brands, e.g. the first Ford car, theHoovervacuum

cleaner. A sub-categoryof this includes newproduct concepts

8/3/2019 589485

10/15

Thestructuralactor in systemsof communication 429within an establishedield, e.g. colourtelevisionwithin the televisionmarketetc. (b) It is a brandenjoyingan overwhelmingly ominantposltlonln ltS tle d.More clearly and generallystated, a true communication ystemis one that is underlinedby a complete structura}definition. Asystem of communicationwhich does not possess an underlyingstructure s not a systembut a randomcollectionof pieces from anunknownjigsaw puzzle. One is thus, to some extent in a chickenand egg situation. Structuralanalysis s not possible until the truesystem hasbeen dentified.But to identify the true systema structuremust be demonstrated. do not have a satisfactoryanswer o thisproblem. To be sure, many cases form a natural system: Greekmythology;the stories of Genesisas was so well demonstratedbyEdmundLeach;the monumentalwork of Levi-Straussndothers.Inother casesa failureto decode a seeminglywell integrated ystem ofcommunication,does not meanthat structuralisms wrong,or that astructuredoes not exist, but very often testifiesrather o a differentfailure, hatof identifying he correctsystemin the firstplace.Why one may ask is the structuraldefinitionso important.Thereason s this: no coherentmessagewill everregister n the audiencemind without it. All that will be achieved s a patchworkof confusedand confusing tatements,or at besta tediouscatalogueof attributes.When the unifyingprinciplewhichlends structureand coherence smissingthe result is a muddle.It is like wordsstrungtogether atrandom.One finalcomment,the underlying tructures not something hatcan be suppliedon demand.The existenceof the structuredoes notdependon consciousvolition. It is a resultof the unconsciouswork-ing of many minds.Of course,having deciphereda structureandhaving found it effective, one may successfullytry to emulate it.But whether one attempts to produce artificiallyan underlyingstructure or not, a structurewill be produced, to cater for theunconsciousdemandof the mindfor legiblecommunication.The evidencen favourof the conclusion hata structuraldefinitionis essentialto the understanding f the message s the simple andafore-mentionedfact, that campaignsfor unique brands (whichequal the whole product field) always possessa completestructurewhile lengthy campaigns or individualcompetingbrandsdo not.Why do campaigns or unique brands differ so sharplyfrom mostadvertising?Why do they provide a complete structureon theirown? Why are they compelled-frequently in a singlecommerciallastingseconds-to produce a complete structuraldefinition?Theexplanation,I believe, is that this happensbecause t musthappen,if the communications to makeany sense at all. Since no interactionis available,a complete stiocturalstatementmust be made by theuniquebrandcampaigntself.

8/3/2019 589485

11/15

430 VardaLeymoreSince commercials reperforce equential,t followsthat optimally,in order to produce maximumeffect, each (or at most very few)

must providea complete definition. In the general ompetitivecase,each new representation onstitutes an addition to an alreadyestab-lished system of communication.Each is, therefore, free to con-centrate on selected fragments feeling'fully confidentthat meaningwill emergefrom the synchronic nteractionamongall the advertisedbrands.In summary, t has been maintained hat an underlying tructureis decodable only from a legitimatesystem of communication.Thestructure is produced collectively though unknowingly by all theadvertisersogether hrough he interactions,permutations, ariationsand reiterations n the system of communication. ts function s thesame as in linguistics,namely,to endow various entences campaignsin our case) with their correctmeaning.If it is true that in a competitivecommunication ystem, all therepresentationsof one party -be it a brand, a political platformor what have you-have no structure, hen it is also true, that bythemselves, they are also meaningless.The idea that individualelements in the system are without meaning, and that meaningis a quality resulting rom a relationshipand cannot be understoodin isolation from it, has been hotly contested. The main difficultyin acceptingsuch a concept stems from the fact that we do happento understandndividualmessages, r at least, we think we do.This apparent onflict betweencommonsense and the structuralist'non-sense'can be bridgedby means of an interpretation orrowedfrom informationtheory. If information s equated with meaning,then it can be said that a unit of communication,expressedbyitself, has a minimal information content because it allows for amaximum choice. By itself it does not disclose what 'it means'.Therefore, one is free to choose any interpretation rom a widerangeof possibilities.For instance, the word 'cloud'by itself evokesa representationof a grey patch in the sky. In England,noticing acloud may be followed by a sigh of regretbecause t meansanotherrainy day. But in a drought, a cloud is greetedwith joy because tsignals a possible end of starvation.And if one speaks of a silverlining one does not think of rain at all. Clouds do not mean thesame things n these differentcontexts.

Further, if it is true that the ultimate messagereceived in theconsumer mind is the result not of individual ampaigns,but of allthe campaigns n the field, then this is in profound contradictionto the most fundamentalpurpose of advertising,which is to dis-tinguish and separate one brand from another. Ultimately, ifhappiness, confidence, growth etc. are features of all baby foods,in the examplegivenabove, then the ground or branddifferentiation,market segmentation is obliterated by the very process through

8/3/2019 589485

12/15

Thestructural actor in systemsof communication 431whichadvertisings communicated nd interpreted n the consumermind. Furthermore, f all communicationsboil down to certainunifyingprinciples, here shouldexist no materialdistinction n theperformance of different brands and instead some sort of equaldistributionshould prevail.Experienceshows, however,that this ispatentlywrong.Certainbrandsdominate the market, n some cases,in spite of considerable inancialandcreativeefforts by their rivalsto unseatthem.Factsare said to be the tragedyof a beautiful theory.Not in thiscase though for the followingreason.Thegreatmajorityof advertis-ing-cars, toothpastes, washingpowders,holidays-takes place inold well establishedmarkets,though the specific models currentlyadvocatedaregenerally ew!Inthesemarkets he structuraldefinitionhas beenestablishedn the courseof theirhistory. Anynew represen-tation is automaticallyclassifiedin terms of the existing pattern,much in the same way that a new sentence which has never beenformulatedbefore neverthelessmust conform to the rules of estab-lishedsyntax.In maturemarkets the efficiency of any specific campaign s,therefore, determined by the economy and the closeness of itsadherence to the establishedarchetype. For example,the classicalcampaignof 'Persilwashes whiter than white' has been immensesuccessful. The structural-definitionquateswashingpowders withGOOD and their non-use with EVIL. The Persilcampaignevokedpowerfully and unmistakenlythe image of goodness.More recentadvertising f washingpowdersresorted o severaldifferentappeals.None was as successful as the originalPersilcampaign.The brandswhich enjoyed the best performancetended to be those whichevoked best the image of purity. Since all detergentsadvertisingattempt to convey the idea of cleanliness, he scope of manoeuvreis limited. The advertiserstruggle n the same narrow pace endeav-ouring to create the most potent image for theirbrand.To advertisePersil,Daz and Omo, for example, claimswere made respectivelyfor whiteness, blueness and brightness.An examination of theperformances ssociatedwith these claimsrevealed harpdifferencesamong he brandswith whitenessdoing bestand brightnessworst.Whyshouldsuchdifferences xist amongbrands,whichare similarin most ways, but theiradvertising? he structuralapproachoffersan explanation. n terms of the archetypaldefinitionof the productfield, the 'brightness'ampaign as becomeunconsciouslyassociatedwith the 'negative' ole of the binarypair,which formsthe exhaustivecommon denominatorof the product field. The furthera campaigndivergesfrom the 'positive'signifier, the more likely it is to beassociated with the 'negative' ignifier.12 n this particular nstance,the brightnesscampaignbecame associated with Evil, while theother campaignsmaintaineda closerassociationwith Good. In less

8/3/2019 589485

13/15

432 VardaLeymorematureproduct fields the archetypehas not been firmlyestablished.The decoded campaignsappear to be in searchof the correct defi-nition. In the typical case a numberof differentsolutions are pro-vided of which, in time, one or two will emergeas the permanentstructural imensionof the field. Meanwhile, fficiency s determinedby the archetypewhich evokesthe strongest esponse.CONCLUDING REMARKSOne, it has been suggested hat a correctly dentifiedsystem of com-municationcan be decoded into one or more structural imensions,which constitute the axes in terms of which the whole system isdefined.Two, the sine-qua-non of a successful decoding is that the com-munication system will be represented-as the theory decrees-inits entirety. Limitless effort to decipher an incompletesystem willresult n naught.Three, a complete structuraldefinition is essential o the under-standing of the message.This conclusion is testified to by the factthat individualcampaigns,often individualcommercials or sole ordominant brands are always equipped with a complete structuraldefinition.It is thiswhichenables hem to convey a coherentmessageupon which depends their very chance of survival.A long andelaborate campaign for a single brand among many brands (themajority of advertising)never possesses a complete structuraldefi-nition. At most it providesunrelated ragments,which can only bedecoded once the other complementarypieces of the puzzle arefound.

Four, the efficiency of cach communication s a function of thestrengthof its affiliation o the structural efinition.Five, the structuraldefinition in advertisingalways consists ofthe great dilemmasof the human condition. It equates the prosaicuse of mundaneproductswith the universalquestionsof existence.It could thusbe that advertising as a specialrole in modern ocieties,which is by far more complex than the commercialpropagation fgoods and services.This subject,however,meritsa separate iscussion.So does a related problem, namely, how do the archetypesevolvebefore a patternemergeswhich appears natural' o the productfield.Six, once many systems of advertisingare successfullydecoded,it becomes possible to reconstruct he underlyinggrid of the grandcommunicationsystem of advertising. ts constituent elements areof the same natureas the archetypaldefinitions.It is formedof therelationshipsbetween such binary pairs as good and evil, life anddeath, culture and nature, peace and war, knowledgeand ignoranceetc. In otherwords, t is the structureof the structures.This grid-its

8/3/2019 589485

14/15

Thestructuralactorin systemsof communication 433dimensionsand theirassociations-provides the sum of the rulestowhich any individualcommuriicationmust conformand of whichanyindividual ommunications an expression.This study exploredthe ramifications f a structural pproach na well establishedcommunication ystem, advertising. believetheresultsare encouraging,or even if the outcomeis not free of ques-tions it is stillrich of promise.WithSherlockHolmesI may concludeand say: 'It is an old maximof mine that when you have excludedthe impossible, whateverremains,however improbable,must bethe truth.'

VardaLeymoreDepartment f SociologyUniversity f LagosNOTES

1. W. Shakespeare,Hamlet, Lon-don, Oxford UniversityPress, Numer-ous editions.2. For a non-technical discussionsee N. Chomsky,Languageand Mind,New York, Harcourt,Brace & World,1968. For an up-to-date discussionof this and other topics, see M.Piatelli-Palmarini,anguageand Learn-ing, Cambridge,Mass.,HarvardUniver-sity Press, 1980.3. C. Levi-Strauss,The ElementaryStructures of Kinship, London, Eyre& Spottiswoode, 1969.4. For a particularly enlighteningdiscussion of structural philosophyand the grandest achievementof themethodology in social anthropology,see the Myt::hologiques uartet: C.Levi-Strauss,TheRawandthe Cooked,London, Jonathan Cape, 1970; FromHoney to Ashes, London, JonathanCape, 1973; The Origins of TableManners, London, Jonathan Cape,

1978; L'Homme nu, Paris, Plon,1968.5. V. Langholz Leymore, HiddenMy h, London, Heinemann, 1975, pp.28-30.6. For a comprehensiveanalysisofthe languageof clothes and fashion,see, R. Barthes,Systeme de la mode,Paris,Editiondu Seuil, 1967.7. Some furtherreadings concern-

ing methodology are: C. Levi-Strauss,the Introduction to The Raw and theCooked, op. cit., also, StructuralAnthropology, London, Allen Lane,1968. R. Boudon, The Uses ofStructuralism, London, Heinemann,1972. M. Lane (ed.), Structuralism,London, Jonathan Cape, 1970. TheIntroduction, M. Banton, The Rel-evance of Models for Social Anthro-pology, London, Tavistock Publi-cations, 1965, E. R. Leach (ed.),The StructuralStudy of My h, Lon-don, Tavistock Publications, 1967;also 'Structuralismn Social Anthro-pology' in D. Robey (ed.), Structural-ism: An Introduction,Oxford,Claren-don Press, 1973.8. In this paper I endeavouredtopresent the essential features of themethodologicalapproachin a simple

. . .. .way. qor a more rlgorousolscusslonand a formal presentation,see, Lang-holz Leymore, 1975, op. cit., ch. 2.9. Examples can be found inLangholzLeymore, 1975, ibid., chs 3and 4. Illustrations romother systemsof communication are E.R. Leach,Genesis as My h, London, CapeEditions, 1969; also 'The Legitimacyof Solomon' in Leach, 1969, op. cit.;E. K. Maranda, The Logic of Riddles'in P. Maranda nd E. K. Marandaeds),StructuralAnalysis of OralTradition,

8/3/2019 589485

15/15

434 VardaLeymorePhiladelphia, University of Pennsyl-vaniaPress,1971.

10. The brandswhich madeup theproduct range in this instance were:Heinz, Gerber, Robinson's, Cow &Gateand Farley's.11. For details see LangholzLey-more, 1975, op. cit., chs 3 and4.12. 'Negative'shouldnot be under-stood in absolute terms. In binarypairs such as Good and Evil, Life and

Death, Happiness and Misery, theterms 'negative'or 'positive'areabsol-ute enough. But they are ratherlessclear cut in other pairs e.g. Cultureand Nature,New and Old, though intheir specific contexts, the negativeor positive implicationsare unmistak-able. For more detailed elaborationof the issues involvedin determiningeffectiveness, see Langholz Leymore,1975, ibid, chs. 5 and6.