ural ism ▁has ▁often ▁been ▁critic ized ▁for ▁being ▁a histor ical ▁and ▁for ▁favour ing ▁determin istic ▁struct ural ▁forces ▁over ▁the ▁ability ▁of ▁people ▁to ▁act . ▁As ▁the ▁political ▁tur bul ence ▁of ▁the ▁ 1 9 6 0 s ▁and ▁ 1 9 7 0 s ▁( and ▁particularly ▁the ▁student ▁u pr is ings ▁of ▁May ▁ 1 9 6 8 ) ▁began ▁affect ing ▁academ ia , ▁issues ▁of ▁power ▁and ▁political ▁struggle ▁moved ▁to ▁the ▁center ▁of ▁people ' s ▁attention . ▁ ▁In ▁the ▁ 1 9 8 0 s , ▁de const ruction — and ▁its ▁emphas is ▁on ▁the ▁fundamental ▁ambigu ity ▁of ▁language ▁rather ▁than ▁its ▁cry st all ine ▁logical ▁structure — bec ame ▁popular . ▁By ▁the ▁end ▁of ▁the ▁century ▁struct ural ism ▁was ▁seen ▁as ▁an ▁histor ically ▁important ▁school ▁of ▁thought , ▁but ▁the ▁movements ▁that ▁it ▁spawn ed , ▁rather ▁than ▁struct ural ism ▁itself , ▁commanded ▁attention . ▁ ▁Several ▁social ▁think ers ▁and ▁academ ics ▁have ▁strongly ▁critic ized ▁struct ural ism ▁or ▁even ▁dismiss ed ▁it ▁in ▁to to . ▁The ▁French ▁herm ene ut ic ▁phil os opher ▁Paul ▁Ric œur ▁( 1 9 6 9 ) ▁critic ized ▁Lé vi - St ra uss ▁for ▁constantly ▁over ste pping ▁the ▁limits ▁of ▁valid ity ▁of ▁the ▁struct ural ist ▁approach , ▁ending ▁up ▁in ▁what ▁Ric œur ▁described ▁as ▁" a ▁Kant ian ism ▁without ▁a ▁trans c endent al ▁subject