Formulation of the Claim
Radical structuralism neglects the text’s historical development.
Explanation
Arkoun does not reject structural analysis in principle, but he objects to it when it encloses the text within its verbal structure and isolates it from its historicity.
In this objection, the problem lies in the radicalization that turns structuralism into a reading that sees neither transformation nor context, not in the use of the tool itself as an analytical instrument.
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This atom belongs to Arkoun’s critique of approaches that stop at structure and overlook the formation of meaning over time. It is directly connected to his project of reading the Qur’an in a way that takes history into account, instead of merely describing the text’s internal patterns.
Limits of the Claim
This claim does not mean rejecting structuralism as a whole, nor does it equate every structural analysis with historical neglect. What is meant is a reservation about its radical form when it is severed from the historical dimension.
Brief Evidence
Arkoun criticizes radical structuralism when it encloses the text within its verbal structure and separates it from its historical process. He does not reject structural analysis in principle, but objects to it when it neglects the text’s historical development. In this objection, the problem lies in the radicalization that turns the text into a structure isolated from the history of its reception and formation.
Related Links
- Arkoun
- history