HISTORY BETWEEN STRUCTURE AND PRAXIS: MARXISM AND STRUCTURALISM IN HISTORIOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Abstract

This article examines the contributions of Marxist and structuralist approaches to the theory of history, highlighting their impact on the explanation of historical processes and on the renewal of historiographical practice throughout the twentieth century. Marxism is discussed as a plural critical tradition that conceives history through the structural contradictions of the capitalist mode of production and the centrality of social conflict, articulating structure, agency, and historicity. Later Marxist reinterpretations that moved beyond economic determinism broadened this framework by incorporating cultural, political, and symbolic dimensions, reaffirming historical experience as a fundamental category. Structuralism, in turn, introduced a methodological shift by privileging the analysis of relatively stable systems of relations, displacing the focus from the subject to structures and favoring approaches centered on long-term durations and deeper levels of historical time. Authors associated with linguistics and semiotics further contributed to problematizing language, narrative, and the production of meaning in historical writing. The article argues that, despite the criticisms and limitations identified in both paradigms, Marxist and structuralist approaches remain central references for contemporary theory of history, as they enable a critical articulation between structure, action, and the production of historical meaning.