So I'm reading about (social) structuralism, which posits that each is only as it relates to things. I happen to generally be a structuralist. (Especially when I'm at work as an Analyst; although, I've been meaning to learn about categories, which seem like they might be astructural.) The article is OK, but then it says
structuralism was criticized for its rigidity and ahistoricism.
Even though there's nothing about structuralism that might suggest ahistoricality. I don't know whether there really are people who might think this, or whether the authors of the article only think that there are such people. Either way, it goes to show that there are still idiots around. It's not even a matter of not knowing something. It's not that far from any of the involved definitions.