What is post-structuralism anyway?

It doesn't help that different disciplines have different understandings of the term and how they operate in their field. It doesn't help when you do an interdisciplinary degree either, as no-one seems to be able to agree. Ho hum.

It's something to do with language. I can't be arsed to remember to be honest. I think Structuralism is a good theory for explaining the relativity of meaning and how language as a system works. Post-structuralism is better at explaining the lack of meaning in language. Maybe not though.

(Tim H to thread for v.funny pub explanation of Deconstruction)

It's cockrot.

There. That feels better. I feel like I've laid a ghost to rest. Viva Marx!

'Derrida can suck my cock'

I couldn't work out whether this was from an ardent poststructuralist or inveterate liberal humanist. Or just a perv with very odd fantasies.

a. the structural model of knowledge/experience will always undo itself into incoherence

b. meaning is often founded on illusory systems and further

c. often demonstates the point of incoherence in a text or whatever where it all goes wrong/ambivalent.

post structuralist theorists beg us to give up systematising and attempting to find a key or a point to the universe but instead surf merrily on ontological indeterminacies and attain an orgasmic knowledge-play state named "jouissance". Which doesn't seem like much fun, but then what do I know?

indeterminacies of ps have often been championed by essentialist feminists as a liberating way out of rigid male avenues of thought (phallocentrism) and less divisive destructive feminine modes of experiencing the world.

i think that most philosophers fall out of their chairs laughing when ps is broached, but i may be wrong.

Structuralism: is an analytical tool. Whatever it's analyzing it looks at the units of a system, and the rules that make that system work, without regard for any specific content. In language, for instance, structuralists (like Saussure) the units are words (or, actually, the 31 phonemes which make all the sounds of words in English) and the rules are the forms of grammar which order words. In different languages the grammar rules are different, as are the words, but the structure is still the same in all languages: words are put together within a grammatical system to make meaning.

Structuralists believe that the underlying structures which organize units and rules into meaningful systems are generated by the human mind itself, and not by sense perception. As such, the mind is itself a structuring mechanism which looks through units and files them according to rules. This is important, because it means that, for structuralists, the order that we perceive in the world is not inherent in the world, but is a product of our minds. It's not that there is no "reality out there," beyond human perception, but rather that there is too much "reality" (too many units of too many kinds) to be perceived coherently without some kind of "grammar" or system to organize and limit them.

So structuralism sees itself as a science of humankind, and works to uncover all the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel--in mathematics, biology, linguistics, religion, psychology, and literature, to name just a few disciplines that use structuralist analyses. Structuralist analysis posits these systems as universal.

Post-structuraliam: is a school of thought which emerged in the late 1970s, claiming to supersede - or at any rate to 'problematize' - the earlier structuralism. It is best understood as a French-inspired variant of the so-called 'linguistic turn', it is the idea that all perceptions, concepts, and truth-claims are constructed in language, along with the corresponding 'subject-positions' which are likewise (so it is argued) nothing more than transient epiphenomena of this or that cultural discourse. From Saussure post-structuralism takes the notion of language as a system of immanent relationships and differences 'without positive terms'; from Nietzsche, its outlook of extreme epistemological and ethico-evaluative relativism; and from Foucault, its counter-Enlightenment rhetoric of 'power/knowledge' as the motivating force behind talk of reason or truth. Such thinking is vulnerable to all the familiar criticisms - including forms of transcendental refutation - rehearsed against thoroughgoing sceptics and relativists down through the ages.

Does this help?

Structuralism = "wow, I think I can almost see how all of this stuff works!"

Post-structuralism = "no you can't, we made it all up!"

Oh, I can't explain post/structuralism, but I can make jokes about it: "I used to think that language was all a construct but now I'm not Saussure" and Q: Why doesn't Derrida like Christmas?" A: Because he never achieves presence!

Only Generativists believe in "underlying" anything, nowadays. Don't confuse those doofuses with structuralists.

Also 'takes from Foucault' is too generationally different from 'takes from Saussure / Nietzche'. Foucault is one of those who does the taking.

Pedantries.

I think Nabisco's summary not altogether misleading.

are deleuze and guattari PS or just re-evaluators of freud ?

"A bloke writes 28 pages of nonsense about why the key part of Wuthering Heights is the word 'the' at the bottom of page 221 before concluding that it is impossible to know what word 'the' means."

I liked it anyway...

And Pinefox, I agree with you completely. As Alex points out, post-structuralism only took the form of a recognised movement in the mid- to late seventies, it’s genesis (as in the writings of Derrida and Barthes, for example) was in the late sixties. Apologies if I was too ‘general’ in my approach. If people were looking for information on who adopted the philosophy they can refer to Foucault, who is perhaps a little more accessible than the others. Perhaps because he ‘takes’ from the movement as you suggested.

Did I miss the ‘in your own words’ clause?

Yes.

I've just started reading that kristin ross book

xxp--my thesis advisor is an "althusserian" (tho hed never describe himself as such!) and there are traces of "structuralist thought" in some of the work he does; u can still see and read a lot of structuralist thinkers in the englist dept where i am, tho in my experience theyre often co-taught w/ "structure sign & play" as a general history of 20th century continental philosophy. "post-structuralism" is a sort of meaningless term anyway, a catchall for ppl who want to push all the french thinkers from the last 50 years together for anthologies and course summaries (and polemics against "relativism"), despite the fact that not a single one would label him or herself a "poststructuralist" (or "postmodernist" for that matter) and many (while having similar intellectual forebears and topics of study) hold widely different opinions

It's kind of the day-after-the-decade-before's guilty backlash seeming to say (both simultaneously and impossible) that

A) structuralism is bullshit, attempts to create a philosophical GUT of language/culture are definitionally impossible and foolhardy, and that ethical, moral, and social certitudes are all bunk, given that they are basically all dependent upon experience anyway

B) You might as well take it as a philosophical GUT that works of art, culture, writing ... are beyond authoritative human manipulation and understanding and are thusly wholly unimportant in themselves, except w/r/t what they demonstrate, which is incredibly significant as it tells us in a large way about the human condition, but only incidentally.

"structure sign & play" kinda seems like an intellectualized sequel to freudian "fecal play"

followed up by the post-post-structualist response, "kid 'n play"

'attempts to create a philosophical GUT of language'

excuse my virtual complete ignorance of lit theory but I presume youre not talking about formal logic, can you explain what this attempt was about?

What is it that post structualists purport to demonstarte is "incredibly significant"? Is that the "impossible" part of the backlash, ie asserting that words themselves are trivial and then asserting that meaning is important?

it was a joke, you dingbat

http://img27.picoodle.com/img/img27/9/10/14/f_zingbahm_b751941.png

dag HOOS

I think the problem with philosophy now is that we've achieved the level of scientific sophistication to make most philosophy utterly pointless (and often completely wrong) as explanations of human phenomenon.

Neuroscience, biochemistry, anthropology, genetics ... there you can find answers behind language, ego, society, and humanity. Philosophy and theory are vestigial functions that act as entertainment for certain kinds of weirdos... if you really want answers to questions about humanity and society, just turn to science.

ahahahaha

oh stop it xpost

burt you're killing us over here.

which is the kristin ross book? 'anti-americanism'?

am reading the afterlives of may '68 one that people were talking about

also have an emergence of social space commune/rimbaud one that I am not reading

oh i should maybe read that, the 68 one. i have forgotten everything i knew about ranciere.

I'm not real certain that saussure's schtick is "obvious to any middle schooler," That One Guy

That one guy that hit it and quit it, do you have any idea where I could see or get or see chris marker's le joli mai and/or le fond de l'air est rouge?

J0hn D. -- i was quoting sundar. i don't entirely agree, but then i don't even know what middle school is.

RJG -- 'le joli mai' i have seen broken up into bits on youtube. 'le fond...' i have torrented. it may have been from c1nema 0bscura:

http://www.c1nema-0bscura.com/index.php (degoogleproofed obv)

or less likely

http://fr3akyflicks.tk/

he is a bit 'funny' about his older films.

I can burn you a copy of 'Le fond de l'air...' if you can't find it, Jack... (I also have 'Chats perchés')

Hey, you dudes may think it's hilarious, but belief in philosophy makes as much sense as belief in religion - explaining the phenomenon of the world through metaphysical, rather than scientific, means.

If these philosophers can show rigorous data and sound methods to back up their ideas against a long process of peer review, then maybe philosophy would be a valid way of explaining the world.

i don't think philosophy is about the belief that it solves/explains anything, it's just nice to read/hear big thoughts well expressed.

i heard the jury's still out on science.

xpost

science does NOT, and CANNOT, prove anything.

how it can "explain" a damn thing beyond itself is then sort of problematic.

i was half-kidding. i think you're both wrong, ryan and burt.

no poppero but yeah, science* can prove things insofar as anything can.

but on the other hand, it* can't 'explain the world'.

*obviously a bit of a problem referring to "it" in this way, but you get the idea.

what, exactly, can it prove? and HOW does it prove?

induction leads to hypotheses....not proofs...

i said "can prove things insofar as anything can" because i expected douchebaggy point such as yours.

if you can only reach hypotheses with science, can there be such a thing as "proof" for you?

The reason why analytic philosophers (and similarly mathematicians and cognitive scientists) have a difficult time dressing themselves or dress poorly is that the satisfaction of any sentence involving the "goes with" relation is not finitely decidable. There is no algorithm by which one can in a finite amount of time, much less in the morning before you are too late for class, decide with deductive certainty whether an outfit is sharp and properly accessorized. Now, there are rules which by which we can rule out entire classes of ordered pairs, e.g., let x be a member of the class of checked clothing and y be a member of the class of striped clothing, it is fairly trivial to show that for all such x and all such y, Gxy must be false (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to provide a proof). But for the general case there is no finitely executable decision procedure such that for any two arbitrary articles of clothing one may determine the satisfaction of G.

tl;aiwcw*

'assumed it was custos-worthy'

is this the same ryan that was so depwessed on the dawkins thread?

did anybody see that documentary on young mathematical geniuses last night, then? because that's the first thing i thought of when i read Hoos's last post.

river wolf -- probably! i think i posted on that a LONG time ago.

i wasnt intending to be douchebaggish, btw, sorry if i came across that way.

i am writing my dissertation on american pragmatism, so redefining things like "truth" and "proof" without casting ourselves into the post-structuralist abyss are sorta urgent and key for me.

how would you prove no WMD'S?

haha...ok yeah i was a bit OTT on the dawkins thread...i probably just finished reading E.M. Cioran or something...

thanks, That one guy that hit it and quit it, will check out the youtube--had a torrent file for le fond de l'air but it wouldn't start

stevie! that would be really useful! the other sounds like it'd be v good, too!

!

we're going to be in london, the weekend after next, actually. if PF is available, we'd go out w/ him on sat, anyway. it would be good to see you, too, if you're around!!

hahaha burt made this thread awesome

x-post
The weekend of the 27-28? I think I will be in Glasgow that weekend :/

oh no!

Surely it is better to say what post-structuralism isn't?

"dingbat"

ahhhhhhhh, shit how could i have got that so wrong! i could feign ironic briliance but ha whoops i get it now, and a zing, of sorts, from hoos,of all people, lordy.

I only just found out about these guys when Gmail linked it for me:

http://www.semiotics.co.uk/?gclid=CMDQ5JbX450CFSENDQodwGxbPQ

I don't know if I should be surprised or not.

wow. Barthes would be so proud.

(I've opted for surprised.)

wasn't there a period in the late 90s where ad agencies were seeking semiotics majors? i vaguely remember some NYT article about this that my mom forwarded me in her ongoing attempt to turn me into a more lucratively employed person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch_OgoR0WPs&feature=plcp

steigler was great on that heidegger movie, he used to rob banks!

*THIS* is post-structuralism (jonathan culler, remembering the early or mid-60s, stolen from an account i don't follow on bsky) :

https://i.imgur.com/5adJUgK.jpeg

i don't think that's what foucault meant by power-knowledge

we all know that the ternary British plug can produce a kind of infinite semiotic slippage that the binary French plug could only dream of

Godard himself holds court as Professor Pluggy, a prophetic mumbler who has a mess of cables and audi-visual leads for hair

king lear decoded at last