1. Levi-Strauss Essay
By Zack A S Spencer
In Source B, we can identify immediately, by applying Levi-Strauss’ Structuralism, a binary
opposition between traditional and royalistic conservatives and progressive liberals, portrayed
by the visuals of Meghan Markle, a powerful and successfully independent mixed race
woman who represents a more diverse and welcoming equal future with influences from the
comparatively more liberal/equal country of America, opposite from (ideologically and
physically) than Prince Harry David of Sussex, a symbol of England’s eternal fealty to its
monarchy and its clinging on to old medieval ways. These two figures communing present
the consumer with a very polarised and contrasting binary opposition that forces the audience
to side with one of the ideologies/ exemplars of their values: Harry representing more
conservative and medieval values of England and Meghan standing for the progression/
advancement of humanity and equality.
Levi-Strauss defines a binary opposition as a conflict of ideals that makes a narrative more
compelling, conveys ideas in a simple to digest manner and to provide an audience with a
group to villainise/ stereotype against. Using this definition and the identified binary
opposition of Royalist Traditionalism versus Progressive Liberalism, we can first look at the
most blatant reference to this opposition, the chosen image. Here, we can see Harry and
Meghan making direct eye contact with eachother, smiling, with sitting positions angled
towards eachother. Though these two represent completely antonymic ideals yet appear to be
getting along. However, we are yet shown visually how different both parties are by the
colour of their clothing, creating a binary opposition between the light suit of Harry and the
black dress of Meghan to reinforce the stark difference implied between the two, to make the
sides in this conflict visually different to eachother and to subtly identify the difference in
race/ backgrounds between the two (Harry being white and raised in the highest society/
finest care and Meghan being mixed race, with an African American mother raised in a
predominantly black neighbourhood of America). Next is the title, used to reinforce the
polarisation of this topic in splitting the nation, the words “praise” and “vitriol” (vitriol being
very strong and bitter hatred/ire) are total opposites, another binary opposition this time with
words to show to the consumer just how two-sided and conflicted the nation feels about the
values of traditionalism and progression.
The cultural representation here is the difference between Meghan’s progressive American
upbringing and Harry’s royal and nigh-medieval background. Meghan in England acts as a
symbol of change for a more equal and changing UK, being from America which is arguably
one of the most progressive nations/ more progressive than England (in terms of other
country’s acceptance of different genders, sexualities, and races), meaning she also carries the
threat to traditionalists of changing England to be more like America. However, Harry
represents the cultural traditions of England, a country with a monarchy and history of multi-
culturalism and colonisation, and the stagnation and lack of change/ thirst for regression
craved by Royalists and conservatives alike. The polarised upbringings and cultural values
that shaped both of these figures is very polarising, with traditionally valued families
2. supporting Harry’s medieval and unchanging values (though he may not believe these, he is a
symbol of royalty and thus fealty, oppression, and medieval values nevertheless) and with
younger and more left-wing people supporting the symbol of change and powerful American
female/ mixed-race success and independence of Meghan.
For the Social representation of the UK, we can see this article is intended to split its
audience on either side of the conservative vs progressionist binary opposition, using a binary
opposition to convey the conflict of ideas quickly and plainly at work, compel consumers to
side with one figure/ character, enthral a reader-base with the conflict/narrative, and satisfy
both sides and further polarise their beliefs. An example of audience gratification here, with
the purpose of reinforce the social divide between the typically younger and more open-
minded liberals and stubborn regressionist conservatives, is the opening paragraph of copy,
reading: ‘To Serena Williams, Meghan is “selfless”, leads with “empathy and compassion”,
and illustrates “what it means to be truly noble”. To Piers Morgan, she is “pious”, “self-
pitying”, and “repulsive”.’ By sharing the opinions of figures prolific in the modern public-
eye, the newspaper share opinions of influential people liked by certain groups that align with
the social ideals both figures in this article represent: Piers Morgan being notoriously bigoted
and bullyish towards the LGBTQ+ community and other minority groups and a known
conservative traditional man, and Serena Williams being a powerful and independent black
woman in a highly competitive sport, thought once to be a man’s sport.
In conclusion, the binary opposition between progressivism and traditionalism presented
through contrasted/ opposing imagery (black vs white) as well as the figures of Meghan and
Harry is used to compel the audience to pick a side in this conflict not only aligning with an
ideology and the social prospects for England’s future, but also those who back both sides
(Piers and Harry or Serena and Meghan for example).
