I found it really interesting the way Barthes originally described structural activity in relation to the goals. While clearly the goal of “reconstructing an object in such a way as to manifest thereby the rules of function of this object” is what the reader is suppose to focus on, the section immediately following that is what caught my attention (pages 214-216). Later, Barthes goes into more detail about the very “structuralist” part of finding the functions, however the way he broadly described the action of creating a simulacrum here seemed to be a universal human action. Any “object” someone wishes to study is subjected to the state of the studier and thus is recreated in a unique way. While I feel Barthes touched on this (alluding to the potentially “reflexive” nature of the reconstruction) I feel like his statement of structural activity not being an “original impression of the world, but a veritable fabrication of a word which resembles the primary one…to render it intelligible” implies that most people simply get an “impression” of the world. I think that creating a specific copy of the world in a way that can be used by the perceiver is not limited simply to the structuralist. Barthes also discusses the importance of what man adds to the reconstruction. I think that it is unavoidable to add one’s own personal spin when trying to understand the world in a relevant way. There is such a limitless amount of information about the world (or any 'object') that the observer can not help but create a custom tailored version for their purpose. Barthes points out the anthropological value of this addition “in that it is man himself, his history, his situation, his freedom and the very resistance which nature offers to his mind” within structural activity. However, I think it is interesting to consider the broader implications of this kind of action in terms of the way all humans create their own simulacrum of reality.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?