The Structural Factor in Systems of Communication Author(s): Varda Leymore Reviewed work(s): Source: The British Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 421-434 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science Stable 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

VardaLeymore

The

structural
* @

factor

in

systems

of

communlcatlon

ABSTRACT

The paper reports the results of a structural investigation into the nature of a competitive communication system with particular reference to advertising. It begins by outlining briefly the relevant principles of structuralism and the methodological tools that follow from them. The method is then illustrated, using all the multi-brand campaigns of one product field, in this instance, baby foods. It shows that the process of decoding results in an underlying structural definition of a binary type. Similar binary structures were obtained when the method was employed on a large number of both static (press) and dynamic (television) advertising campaigns. This seems to confirm the key claim of structuralism, namely, that underlying the great heterogeneity in the system of appearances, there are a limited number of structuring rules or unifying principles. The paper discusses the nature of the structures and a number of related theoretical issues stemming from them. More specifically, the underlying structural definitions in advertising invariably involve a formula which equates the use and the non-use of the product with the great universal dilemmas of the human condition e.g. Good and Evil, Happiness and Misery, Life and Death. Persuasion by advertising, therefore, operates as an unconscious mechanism of threat and promise. Second, a true ccfmmunication system, i.e. one that is capable of conveying meaning, must possess an underlying structure. Such a structure is indispensable to the understanding of the message. A series of related communications 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 bring about the desired action on the part of the recipient of the communication. 'Who said what to whom by what means and with what effect'
The BritishJournalof Sociology Volume33
S1.50 421

Number3

September1982

O RK.P. 1982 0007 1315/82/3303-0421

422

VardaLeymore

has been extensively analysed.The generalthrust of the enquiries concerned the four great manifestationsof the process of communication,namely, the source, the message,the receiverand the impact. The road opened to different approacheswith the great strides made by Noam Chomskyin linguisticsand Levi-Strauss in socialanthropology. The origins of this article are rooted in structuralism. This essentially means that one seeks to understandcommunicationin terms of some governingprinciplesrather than specific contents. The principles must fulfil one demand only: that they be true whenever the set of conditions for which they have been formulated occur. I will first outline the set of conditions,which define the nature of the communicationsystem I have in mind. This possessesthe followingcharacteristics: (a) The contents of the system are goal-directed,i.e. the system is not freewheeling. has a purposeto accomplish. It Morespecifically, the contents are used as a weapon in a competitive situation, with the express intent of achieving a goal. Paramount examplesare advertising election campaigns. and (b) Following from (a), the sources of communicationsare varied, but the audienceto whom they areaddressed the same. is (c) As a result of (a) and (b), often, but by no meansalways,the result of the competition is zero-sum,a gain of one is the loss of the other. This is certainly true of election campaignsand of many marketing situations. But in non-mature markets, for instance,where growthpotential has not been fully realized, intensive campaigning may result in an overallexpansion,thereby creatingmore for all competitors. (d) The system of communicationconsists of a very largenumber of messages. (e) The internal communicationshave to compete for attention with messages and circumstancesexternal to the system of communication underinvestigation. (f) The mediasourcesarepressand television. The system of communicationI have in mind is, thus, one in which rivals seek to persuade.In the final analysis, merit is not judged by the joy of discourseor the beauty of the imagery,but by the stark facts of winning or losing. I will use advertisingas an examplethroughout,since this was the sourceof my material.
'THOUGH THIS BE MADNESS, YET THERE IS METHOD IN 'T"

The essence of stiocturalismas a scientific approach rooted in the is belief that underlying the endless permutations and numerous

The structural factor in systems of communication

423

explicit manifestations,there is a limited and binding set of rules. There is order in the seeming chaos. Nothing is haphazard.Even in areaswhere freedom seems boundless,it is neverthelesslisnited to an act of choice among permissiblealternatives.For instance, the arsenalof words in a languagemust be orderedin a prescribed mannerin orderto convey meaning. While there is little resistanceto the concept of innate programming as far as physical growth is concerned, the idea that this could be extendedinto mental,psychological, theoreticalperspective social or economic developmentis, at times, brandedas determinism and reductionism of the worst type. In these more emotionally / loaded spheres it is safer, one instinctivel feels, to depend on common sense. To attributeultimate power to largelyunknownbut controlling principles of organizationis a dangerous delegation. the theoryattributes capacityfor language learning Thus,Behaviourist of acquisition-the most universalcharacteristic the humanspecies mental capabilities-to aping.To the question,how do people learn to speak, comes the swift answer:by copying their instructors.It acquisition was Chomskywho raisedthe simpleproblem:if language childto is foundedon emulation,how is it possiblefor a two year-old 'invent' sentences he has never heard before, though people will readily agree that (a) this happensregularly,and (b) that the child can give no accountof how he came to pronouncesuch linguistically accuratesentences.2 Other questionsarise too: how does it happen that a young, two or three years old bilingualchild never mixes the two languages,providedthat, duringthe processof acquisition,the adhereto them consistently.Moreover, speakersof the two languages he is able to translatefreely from one languageto another,and all he speakers meets areinstantlyallocatedto one or the otherlanguage category, in spite of the fact that he has no conception whatsoever demonstrated of what a languageis. In a differentfield, Levi-Strauss that the exchangeof women follows certainrules,thoughno one of influencedby theserulescouldsaywhatthey those most emphatically were.3 And again, in his analysis of systems of mythology, LeviStrauss was able to show how these systems were designedto resocial values, though to those who told inforce certainfundamental them they werebut wonderfulsacredlegends.4 Briefly, structuralismmaintains that (a) any system of cc)maccordingto specificprinciples; municationis organized (b) These principlesare unconscious,in spite of the fact that they are constantlyand rigorouslyapplied; (c) The system of appearances,the contents of the surface comin munications-the myths in mythology, the commercials advertisas ing, the public addressesin political campaigns-are regarded a code that must be decipheredin order to reveal the underlying rules; structuring

424

VardaLeymore

(d) The decodingprocess follows three steps. The first involvesthe identification of the constituent parts, otherwise known as the elementarysegmentsof the system,by no meansa simpletheoretical issue. These are defined as the relevantminimalmeaningfulparts belonging to the communicationsystem under investigation.They are the phonemes in linguistics or the mythemes in mythologics. Second, it is a fundamentalcontention of structuralism, drawing upon linguisticsand other disciplines, that these elementary segments fall into a consistent pattern of binary oppositions. These are dimensionsof the form Night and Day, Rich and Poor, Black and White, High and Low, Manand Woman.The concept of the binary oppositionis widelyutilizedin its pureform (A and NOTA or O and 1) in logics, linearalgebra,computersciences.In the social sciences they are not so readilyexploitable,but with some qualifications and amplifications they can be used.S Third, once identified these binary oppositions can be groupedinto a conlprehensive system of relationships.To borrow perforce a technical expression,they are capableof formingparadigmatic relationships. These areassociations by virtue of a shared function. In a particularsentence, all words thatcanserve,for instance,the functionof a noun, form paradigmatic relationshipswith each other. Since they serve the same function they can never appeartogether. If trousersand skirt are garments whose function it is to cover the bottom half of the body, they cannot (usually) be worn together.To cover one head, one type of hat must be selectedat any particular momentin time.6 In other words, one may be able to discovera formulawherepairs of oppositions could be groupedinto a system of relationships, i.e. a structure,by virtue of the fact that all the elementson the 'left' have the same function, and all the elementson the 'right'havethe same function which is converseto the one on the left. For instance, Tolkien's The Lord Of The Rings is undoubtedly one of the most complex literaryinventions of modern times. At a risk of a gross simplificationone may ask: is there a principleaccordingto which such diverse constituent elements (selected at random) might be classified:Bilbo, Frodo, a Black Rider, Gandalf,Gollum,Aragorn Orcs, Hobbits, Mordor,Saruman, Trolls, The Dark Lord, The Ring, The Dead Marshes, Elves, Shelob, The Shire.I would suggestthat all fall into tvzo mutually opposing categories:the good and the evil. By means of this single dimensionevery character,as indeed any animatedand unanimated'object',can be classifiedin The Lord of The Rings. The pairsare not random.For instance,Gandalfandnot Sarumanis the opposite of the Dark Lord. Saruman the mediator is between the two since he is good turned evil. It may thereforebe said, that the binarydimensiongood-evilis one axis, though by no means the only axis, in terms of which all the eventsand characters in the book could be defined.

structural factor in systems of communication Thwe

425

theory one will maintainthat the myriad In terms of structuralist may be classifiedin of manifestationsin the system of appearances pairs of binary oppositions, and that in turn all these pairs are permutationson one or more basic structuraldimensions.In the same way that a simple grid of 2X2 can produce four different combinations, a more complex grid sharplyincreasesthe number of possibilities.But howevercomplex and variedthe manifestations may be, they are still but different and finite expressionsof their dimensions.7 underlying This paperdoes not intend to debatethe meritsand shortcomings I of structuralism. assume that the approachhas some validity and modern proceed to exploreits implicationsfor a highlysophisticated communicationsystem of the type describedabove.I pose only one question: were structuralismtrue, where does it lead us? In the an event, I believe the answersto be sufficientlyexcitingto warrant
* a

exposltlon.

THE METHOD APPLIED

For reasons of pragmaticconveniencemy own empiricalevidence comes from advertising.It covers two types of advertising:static The and dynamic, namely magazineand television advertisements. of first includes all the advertisements five product areasappearing in weekly magazinesduring a period of one year. The television commercials cover three product areas through a period of four yearseach. a To decode the extensivenumberof advertisements, methodology heavily on set theory, structural had to be developed. It draws linguistics and structuralanthropologyand, essentially,providesa tool which enables one to 'travel back' or transform,from the numerous manifestations,which form the advertisingsystem of which control dimensions structural to appearances, the fundamental all such manifestations.8 The analysisfollowed four steps. First, the constituentunits were is identified and recorded.Since advertising notoriouslyrepetitious, redundantelements were eliminated.Second, pairsof binaryoppositions were sought and grouped together. Third, paradigmatic relationshipsamongall the pairshad to be established.And fourth, to was a reductionoperation performed revealthe exhaustivecommon relationships.9 of all the paradigmatic denominator An example may clarify matters. On the surface level, static for advertising baby foods explores,by meansof verbaland graphical illustration,the themes of happiness(motherand baby) and growth. It also states various facts about babies and their specialnature.It examinesthe way in whichbaby foods satisfy certainbasicdemands.

426

VardaLeymore

It describes the versatile nature of the advertisedproducts. The advertisements praisethe manufacturers knowledgeable, as wise and hygienic. It follows, therefore, that they are both competent and capable of offering the mother the confidenceand reassurance she may require. Frequent allusions are made to the baby's need for variety and balanceddiet. It is explainedthat these two areessential for his healthy development.Diet, it appears,is not only vital to his general well-being,it also has a lasting effect on the relationship betweenmotherand child. Every communicationsystem resorts to a certain amount of synonymousrepetitionin orderto establishthe messagemore firmly in the audiencemind. This is tantamountto sayingthat the level of redundancyis high. A first step towards abstractiondemandsthe elimination of such repetitiousstatements. Havingdone so all the claimscan be presentedas a function of each other in the following manner:
BALANCE= GROWTH = HAPPY BABY = HAPPY MOTHER= VARIETY = f(VARIETY) f(VARIETY,BALANCE) f(VARIETY,HAPPY MOTHER) f(CONFIDENCE THE RANGE) IN RANGEOFFERED

I have done so far nothing except getting rid of the obvious repetitions and arrangingthe remainingelements in the relationships which the advertisementsclaim for them. At this stage, however, it becomes clear that a few straightforward algebraicsubstitutions performedon the above equations will reduce all the attributesto the rangeof baby foods. There is perhapsnothing strikingin this result, since the whole object of advertising to inducepurchaseof some productor other. is Havinggrantedthis obvious fact, two commentsare in order.One, the ultimateequalityof the productrangewith all the claimsmadeis revealed not on the surface level but on the underlyingstructural level. The surfacelevelmerelyclaimssomesuchthingsas 'the happiest sounds come from a baby fed on Heinz'. The equationdrawnabove is the ultimate messagewhich the economy of the minddistillsfrom the many many claimsmade in their variousconfigurations. Two, I very carefullyreferredthroughoutto the product range,not to any individualbrand in the product area. The final messageimprinted upon the consumermind is a result of all the advertisements active in the product field, not of any individual campaign any specific for brand.lMorewill be said about this shortly. To returnto the exampleabove,the seriesof paradigmatic relationships among the elementsmay be summarized the followingchain in of binaryoppositions:

factor in systemsof communication Thestructural

BABY FOODS: NOTBABYFOODS- HAPPINESS : UNHAPPINESS- GROWTH : DECAY - VARIETY : UNIFORMITY- BALANCE : IMBALANCE where: means 'is to', and means slike'.

427

The constituents in this paradigmare all members of the nonredundantset. Very little informationwill be added by including and further elements such as 'delight'and 'sadness','development' 'stagnation' etc. But though the obvious repetitions have been elementsconstitute nevernon-redundant eliminated,the remaining theme. I termedit theless aspects or variationson one fundamental and Denominator it constitutesthe structural Common the Exhaustive advocatingbaby foods. In this definition of all the advertisements partlcuar case lt 1S:
* * @

BABY FOODS: NOTBABY FOODS -LIFE:

DEATH

To borrow yet again from linguistics theory, in the paradigmatic relationship above, LIFE is the signifier of BABY FOODS and DEATH is the signifier of NOT BABY FOODS, a strong double edgedmessage. In summary, while manifestly baby food advertisementsoffer these productsfor a variety of good and worthy reasons:nutrition, balance, growth, hygiene etc., the underlyinglevel, the ultimate message decoded in the consumer mind, equates the use of the product with life and growth and their non-use with the threat of deathand stagnation. This is a powerfulmessageindeed,especiallyso since it is targeted so pointedly at the core of the greatest fear all mothersshare.Of course it is unthinkable for any advertiserin his right mind to deliberatelyutilize such a theme. The advertisersmerely set out to describea product in some attractiveterms that seem relevantto its content and potential use. And most emphatically,the scores of in account executives, copy writersand occasionalideas originators agencies,have in no way consciouslycollabtheir diverseadvertising orated to producethis message,though undoubtedlythey areaware of each other's contributionsto the field. And yet it is there,andit is there by virtue of the fact that it was decipheredfrom all the advertisementsin the area, a product of a collective though unconscious mind, labouring through many minds each producinga of few fragments the ultimatedesign. POWDERS yieldedsimilarresultse.g. WASHING Other campaigns like POWDERS GOODis to EVIL;BUTTER is to NOT WASHING is to MARGARINE like PEACEto WAR;FROZENVEGETABLES to is to NOT FROZENVEGETABLES like CULTURE NATUREand classification so on.ll Throughoutthe process of data accumulation,

Leymore Varda

persuadedthat, writer has become increasingly in the madthe decoding and there is method so succinctly stated, of advertising Shal-espeare as (a) underlyingany system Itwould appearthat of structuraldimensions, often only ness. number is a there limited of which the whole systemcan be exhaustively of two, are the greatuniversals oneor in terms dimensionsinvariably Denominatoris always (b) these defined; ExhaustiveCommon condition. The idea human the mind. The archetype,of the human basic in modernsocietiesthan a dilemma,an servea deeperfunction art, may be startling, may advertising that formof commercial a of somewhatdespised However,this subjectmeritsa separate that to be true. would butit appear
. * .

428

dlscusslon.

S PLICATION IM

said so aspect of what has been returnto a different clearly.A basic questionconwish I now to to be spelt out and far which is yet analysisconcerns the natureof the system: this question is any fronting structural drawn.In structuralism on boundaries are where the whole methodologydepends the essencesince the availability all the fragments of more even of the analysiscannot approachdemanding words, structural totalistic a the system. In other the subject of investigationis to belonging out unless be successfully carried ln ltS indicatedthat in advertispresented entlrety. the commentsI havealready In my previous communicationis all meaningfulsystem of product the ing minimal comprisea competitive only, for the brandsthat for advertisementsallhundredsof advertisements one brand It powders,BritishAirways field. follows that field of washing makes of cars, will Persil in the product say or Toyota among various all the the among airliners, communicationsystem. Furthermore, with field lawful form a never of butter-a product for advertisements brands form a validcommunication numerous do not and for inner intensive competition-also the advertisements butter by all system latter case, only In system. the will form one communication the com(tea around which margarine, and coffee) analysisof the competing substitutes a structural virtueof being In a differentvein, candidatein the tJSA is munication organized. one presidential madeby him campaigningof the recent all the publicpronouncements cannever consist of say subjectof the investigation. a sole a single brand can be alone,even if he is the which a campaignfor single brand is one of The only case in system is when the a new viable communication the whole product field, as when equals two things: (a) It for the first time and has not yet differentiated productis launched e.g. the first Ford car, the Hoover vacuum product concepts into several brands, of this includes new cleaner. A sub-category
. * * @

factor in systemsof communication Thestructural

429

field, e.g. colour televisionwithinthe television within an established dominant a brandenjoyingan overwhelmingly market etc. (b) It is posltlonln ltStle d. system More clearly and generallystated, a true communication complete structura}definition. A is one that is underlinedby a system of communicationwhich does not possess an underlying structureis not a system but a randomcollection of pieces from an unknown jigsaw puzzle. One is thus, to some extent in a chicken and egg situation. Structuralanalysisis not possible until the true systemhas beenidentified.But to identify the true system a structure must be demonstrated.I do not have a satisfactoryanswerto this problem. To be sure, many cases form a natural system: Greek by mythology; the stories of Genesis as was so well demonstrated and work of Levi-Strauss others.In EdmundLeach;the monumental system of other cases a failureto decode a seeminglywell integrated is communication,does not meanthat structuralism wrong,or that a structuredoes not exist, but very often testifiesratherto a different failure,that of identifyingthe correctsystem in the first place. Why one may ask is the structuraldefinition so important.The in reasonis this: no coherentmessagewill ever register the audience mind without it. All that will be achievedis a patchworkof confused and confusingstatements,or at best a tedious catalogueof attributes. When the unifying principlewhich lends structureand coherenceis missing the result is a muddle. It is like words strung together at random. structureis not somethingthat One final comment,the underlying can be suppliedon demand.The existence of the structuredoes not depend on consciousvolition. It is a resultof the unconsciousworking of many minds. Of course, having deciphereda structureand having found it effective, one may successfullytry to emulate it. But whether one attempts to produce artificially an underlying structure or not, a structure will be produced, to cater for the unconsciousdemandof the mind for legiblecommunication. definition The evidencein favourof the conclusionthat a structural of the messageis the simple and is essential to the understanding afore-mentioned fact, that campaigns for unique brands (which equal the whole product field) alwayspossess a complete structure while lengthy campaignsfor individualcompeting brandsdo not. Why do campaignsfor unique brandsdiffer so sharply from most advertising?Why do they provide a complete structure on their own? Why are they compelled-frequently in a single commercial lasting seconds-to produce a complete structuraldefinition?The explanation,I believe, is that this happensbecauseit must happen, is if the communication to makeany sense at all. Sinceno interaction is available,a complete stioctural statement must be made by the itself. uniquebrandcampaign

430

VardaLeymore

Since commercials perforcesequential, followsthatoptimally, are it in order to produce maximumeffect, each (or at most very few) must providea complete definition.In the generalcompetitivecase, each new representation constitutesan additionto an alreadyestablished system of communication.Each is, therefore, free to concentrateon selected fragments'feeling'fully confidentthat meaning will emergefrom the synchronicinteractionamongall the advertised brands. In summary,it has been maintainedthat an underlyingstructure is decodable only from a legitimatesystem of communication. The structure is produced collectively though unknowinglyby all the advertisers togetherthroughthe interactions, permutations, variations and reiterationsin the system of communication. functionis the Its sameas in linguistics, namely,to endowvarioussentences(campaigns in our case) with theircorrectmeaning. If it is true that in a competitivecommunication system, all the representations one party -be it a brand, a political platform of or what have you-have no structure,then it is also true, that by themselves, they are also meaningless.The idea that individual elements in the system are without meaning, and that meaning is a quality resultingfrom a relationshipand cannot be understood in isolation from it, has been hotly contested. The main difficulty in acceptingsuch a concept stems from the fact that we do happen to understand individual messages, at least, we thinkwe do. or This apparent conflict betweencommonsenseand the structuralist 'non-sense'can be bridgedby means of an interpretation borrowed from informationtheory. If informationis equated with meaning, then it can be said that a unit of communication,expressedby itself, has a minimal information content because it allows for a maximum choice. By itself it does not disclose what 'it means'. Therefore, one is free to choose any interpretationfrom a wide rangeof possibilities.For instance,the word 'cloud'by itself evokes a representation a grey patch in the sky. In England,noticing a of cloud may be followed by a sigh of regretbecauseit meansanother rainy day. But in a drought, a cloud is greetedwith joy becauseit signals a possible end of starvation.And if one speaks of a silver lining one does not think of rain at all. Clouds do not mean the samethingsin these differentcontexts. Further, if it is true that the ultimate messagereceived in the consumermind is the result not of individualcampaigns, of all but the campaignsin the field, then this is in profound contradiction to the most fundamentalpurpose of advertising, which is to distinguish and separate one brand from another. Ultimately, if happiness, confidence, growth etc. are features of all baby foods, in the examplegivenabove,then the groundfor branddifferentiation, market segmentation is obliterated by the very process through

Thestructural factor in systemsof communication

431

which advertising communicated is and interpretedin the consumer mind. Furthermore,if all communicationsboil down to certain unifying principles,there should exist no materialdistinctionin the performance of different brands and instead some sort of equal distributionshould prevail.Experienceshows, however,that this is patently wrong.Certainbrandsdominatethe market,in some cases, in spite of considerablefinancialand creativeefforts by their rivals to unseatthem. Facts are said to be the tragedyof a beautifultheory.Not in this case though for the followingreason.The greatmajorityof advertising-cars, toothpastes, washingpowders, holidays-takes place in old well establishedmarkets,though the specific models currently advocatedaregenerally new!In thesemarketsthe structural definition has been established the courseof theirhistory.Any new represenin tation is automaticallyclassified in terms of the existing pattern, much in the same way that a new sentence which has never been formulatedbefore neverthelessmust conform to the rules of establishedsyntax. In mature markets the efficiency of any specific campaignis, therefore, determined by the economy and the closeness of its adherence to the establishedarchetype. For example, the classical campaignof 'Persil washes whiter than white' has been immense successful. The structural-definition equates washingpowders with GOOD and their non-use with EVIL. The Persil campaignevoked powerfully and unmistakenlythe image of goodness. More recent advertising washingpowdersresortedto severaldifferentappeals. of None was as successfulas the originalPersilcampaign. The brands which enjoyed the best performance tended to be those which evoked best the image of purity. Since all detergents advertising attempt to convey the idea of cleanliness,the scope of manoeuvre is limited. The advertisers strugglein the same narrowspace endeavouringto create the most potent image for theirbrand.To advertise Persil, Daz and Omo, for example, claims were made respectively for whiteness, blueness and brightness. An examination of the performances associatedwith these claimsrevealedsharpdifferences amongthe brandswith whitenessdoingbest and brightness worst. Why shouldsuch differencesexist amongbrands,whicharesimilar in most ways, but their advertising? structuralapproachoffers The an explanation.In terms of the archetypaldefinitionof the product field, the 'brightness' campaign becomeunconsciouslyassociated has with the 'negative' pole of the binarypair,which formsthe exhaustive common denominatorof the product field. The furthera campaign diverges from the 'positive' signifier, the more likely it is to be associatedwith the 'negative'signifier.12 this particular In instance, the brightness campaign became associated with Evil, while the other campaignsmaintaineda closer associationwith Good. In less

432

VardaLeymore

matureproduct fields the archetypehas not been firmlyestablished. The decoded campaignsappearto be in searchof the correct definition. In the typical case a numberof differentsolutions are provided of which, in time, one or two will emergeas the permanent structural dimensionof the field. Meanwhile, efficiencyis determined by the archetypewhich evokesthe strongestresponse.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

One, it has been suggestedthat a correctlyidentifiedsystem of communicationcan be decoded into one or more structural dimensions, which constitute the axes in terms of which the whole system is defined. Two, the sine-qua-non of a successful decoding is that the communicationsystem will be represented-as the theory decrees-in its entirety. Limitlesseffort to decipheran incompletesystem will resultin naught. Three, a complete structuraldefinition is essentialto the understandingof the message.This conclusion is testified to by the fact that individualcampaigns,often individualcommercials sole or for dominant brands are always equipped with a complete structural definition.It is thiswhichenablesthem to convey a coherentmessage upon which depends their very chance of survival.A long and elaborate campaign for a single brand among many brands (the majority of advertising) never possessesa complete structuraldefinition. At most it providesunrelatedfragments, which can only be decoded once the other complementarypieces of the puzzle are found. Four, the efficiency of cach communication a function of the is strengthof its affiliationto the structural definition. Five, the structuraldefinition in advertisingalways consists of the great dilemmasof the human condition. It equatesthe prosaic use of mundaneproductswith the universalquestionsof existence. It couldthusbe that advertising a specialrole in modernsocieties, has which is by far more complex than the commercialpropagation of goods and services.This subject,however,meritsa separate discussion. So does a related problem, namely, how do the archetypesevolve beforea patternemergeswhichappears'natural' the productfield. to Six, once many systems of advertisingare successfullydecoded, it becomes possible to reconstructthe underlyinggrid of the grand communicationsystem of advertising. constituent elements are Its of the same natureas the archetypaldefinitions.It is formedof the relationshipsbetween such binary pairs as good and evil, life and death, cultureand nature,peace and war, knowledgeand ignorance etc. In otherwords,it is the structureof the structures. This grid-its

factor in systemsof communication Thestructural

433

dimensionsand their associations-provides the sum of the rulesto must conform and of which which any individualcommuriication is communication an expression. any individual on approach of This study exploredthe ramifications a structural I a well establishedcommunicationsystem, advertising. believe the for resultsare encouraging, even if the outcome is not free of questions it is still rich of promise.WithSherlockHolmesI may conclude and say: 'It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,must be the truth.' Varda Leymore of Department Sociology of University Lagos
NOTES

1. W. Shakespeare, Hamlet, London, Oxford UniversityPress, Numerous editions. 2. For a non-technical discussion see N. Chomsky,Languageand Mind, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968. For an up-to-date discussion of this and other topics, see M. Languageand LearnPiatelli-Palmarini, UniverMass.,Harvard ing, Cambridge, sity Press, 1980. The Elementary 3. C. Levi-Strauss, Structures of Kinship, London, Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1969. 4. For a particularly enlightening discussion of structural philosophy and the grandest achievement of the methodology in social anthropology, quartet: C. see the Myt::hologiques TheRawand the Cooked, Levi-Strauss, London, Jonathan Cape, 1970; From Honey to Ashes, London, Jonathan Cape, 1973; The Origins of Table Manners, London, Jonathan Cape, 1978; L'Homme nu, Paris, Plon, 1968. 5. V. Langholz Leymore, Hidden Myth, London, Heinemann, 1975, pp. 28-30. 6. For a comprehensiveanalysis of the language of clothes and fashion, see, R. Barthes, Systeme de la mode, Paris,Edition du Seuil, 1967. 7. Some further readings concern-

ing methodology are: C. Levi-Strauss, the Introduction to The Raw and the Cooked, op. cit., also, Structural Anthropology, London, Allen Lane, 1968. R. Boudon, The Uses of Structuralism, London, Heinemann, 1972. M. Lane (ed.), Structuralism, London, Jonathan Cape, 1970. The Introduction, M. Banton, The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, London, Tavistock Publications, 1965, E. R. Leach (ed.), The Structural Study of Myth, London, Tavistock Publications, 1967; also 'Structuralismin Social Anthropology' in D. Robey (ed.), Structuralism: An Introduction, Oxford, Clarendon Press,1973. 8. In this paper I endeavouredto present the essential features of the methodological approach in a simple way. qor a more rlgorous olscusslon and a formal presentation, see, Langholz Leymore, 1975, op. cit., ch. 2. 9. Examples can be found in Langholz Leymore, 1975, ibid., chs 3 and 4. Illustrationsfrom other systems of communication are E.R. Leach, Genesis as Myth, London, Cape Editions, 1969; also 'The Legitimacy of Solomon' in Leach, 1969, op. cit.; E. K. Maranda,'The Logic of Riddles' (eds), and in P. Maranda E. K. Maranda StructuralAnalysis of Oral Tradition,
. . .. .

434
Philadelphia, University of PennsylvaniaPress,1971. 10. The brandswhich made up the product range in this instance were: Heinz, Gerber, Robinson's, Cow & Gate and Farley's. 11. For details see Langholz Leymore, 1975, op. cit., chs 3 and 4. 12. 'Negative'should not be understood in absolute terms. In binary pairs such as Good and Evil, Life and

VardaLeymore
Death, Happiness and Misery, the terms 'negative'or 'positive' are absolute enough. But they are rather less clear cut in other pairs e.g. Culture and Nature, New and Old, though in their specific contexts, the negative or positive implications are unmistakable. For more detailed elaboration of the issues involved in determining effectiveness, see Langholz Leymore, 1975, ibid, chs. 5 and 6.