Is there some school of thought that corrects the defects of Structuralism?

In the social sciences structuralism has said, that structures which are unknown to the participants living in them govern their customs, economy, psychology, political system, etc., but b/c of structuralist linguistics one of it's inspirations, it's always been said that the structures are logically structured like a language, so that there will be clear delineations between structures. This to me is unrealistic, because life isn't like a computer. life is organic. nothing is always cut and dry. society will evolve into structures due to hidden forces but the structures will not neccesarilly be precise. just like with the evolution of an animal, parts/structures will develop with no use like the appendix, or there will be the occasional freak individual with 6 fingers. is there a structuralism that allows this with broader groups of people, or a corrective to structuralism?

To me, this gets back to problems of structure/agency, but this problem was solved already in classical social theory. Karl Marx argued that "men make their own history. But they do not make themselves under conditions of their own choosing." He also argued that politics, culture, economics, and civil society were intertwined in the "mode of production," which is also a "mode of producing people." Then C. Wright Mills and others argued that when we act enact our identity, it is socially structured. You can't determine exact influences of separate structures, but it doesn't have to restrict social theory to just micro-encounters. And one philosopher I read - Kostas Axelos - had the idea of seeing the world as a game: there is free play and agency, but only within a set of pre-established structures/rules. All the moves in the game are relational, and the positions are structured. Sometimes this isn't exactly 'organic.' Emile Durkheim saw societies as ordered through organic solidarity (e.g., institutions are like organs), but he couldn't explain crises happening in the system. He thought 'anomie' was deviant, but it turns out that it's pretty widespread and essential. Hope that answers it for ya.

That quote should've read: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under circumstances of their own choosing, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like an nightmare on the brains of the living." Regardless of whether you're a 'Marxist,' I think that's something he gets right about social structure.

As a former sociology student. . . . google is your friend. or get a sociology dictionary you will find all the information you need. Post structuralism is a good theory, as put by some writer I can't remember "it turns structuralisms arguments against itself and points to some inconsistencies" or something like that. haha.