". ▁Anth rop ologist ▁Adam ▁K uper ▁( 1 9 7 3 ) ▁argued ▁that ▁"' Struct ural ism ' ▁came ▁to ▁have ▁something ▁of ▁the ▁momentum ▁of ▁a ▁mill enn ial ▁movement ▁and ▁some ▁of ▁its ▁ad her ents ▁felt ▁that ▁they ▁formed ▁a ▁secret ▁society ▁of ▁the ▁seeing ▁in ▁a ▁world ▁of ▁the ▁blind . ▁Con version ▁was ▁not ▁just ▁a ▁matter ▁of ▁accepting ▁a ▁new ▁parad ig m . ▁It ▁was , ▁almost , ▁a ▁question ▁of ▁salv ation ." ▁Philip ▁No el ▁P ett it ▁( 1 9 7 5 ) ▁called ▁for ▁an ▁abandon ing ▁of ▁" the ▁posit iv ist ▁dream ▁which ▁Lé vi - St ra uss ▁dream ed ▁for ▁semi ology " ▁arg uing ▁that ▁semi ology ▁is ▁not ▁to ▁be ▁placed ▁among ▁the ▁natural ▁sciences . ▁Corn el ius ▁Cast ori ad is ▁( 1 9 7 5 ) ▁critic ized ▁struct ural ism ▁as ▁failing ▁to ▁explain ▁symbol ic ▁med iation ▁in ▁the ▁social ▁world ; ▁he ▁viewed ▁struct ural ism ▁as ▁a ▁variation ▁on ▁the ▁" logic ist " ▁theme , ▁and ▁he ▁argued ▁that , ▁contrary ▁to ▁what ▁struct ural ists ▁advoc ate , ▁language — and ▁symbol ic ▁systems ▁in ▁general — c annot ▁be ▁reduced ▁to ▁logical ▁organizations ▁on ▁the ▁basis ▁of ▁the ▁binary ▁logic ▁of ▁oppos itions . ▁Crit ical ▁the or ist ▁J ürgen ▁Hab erm as ▁( 1 9 8 5 ) ▁accused ▁struct ural ists , ▁such ▁as ▁Fou ca ult , ▁of ▁being ▁posit