Levi-Strauss redefined structure from observable institutions to deep underlying relations modeled on language.

Evidence

The essential difference lay in the two meanings of the key term, structure . By “structure” classical Social Anthropology understood the observable structures—the institutional orders—of a society. In Lé vi-Strauss, the term is closer to the “deep-structure”: it means the underlying system of relations between terms, conceptualized on the model of a language. … The gulf separating the two approaches is neatly caught in the following distinction: Bronislaw Malinowski believed that primitive peoples classified certain edibles as totems because they were good (or bad) to eat. Lé vi-Strauss’s response was that they were arranged within totemic systems “not because they are good to eat but because they are good to think with.” — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 358

Categorization

• DEFINE: Pins down Levi-Strauss’s decisive redefinition of ‘structure’ against classical anthropology and gives the totem distinction as its pithiest emblem.
• CANDY: The ‘good to think with’ versus ‘good to eat’ totem distinction is a well-known stand-alone intellectual one-liner.