Summary: A brief exploration of a complicated topic.

I am not adequately trained to discuss poststructuralism (or any philosophical idea.) But that is one reason that I like these Very Short Introduction books. They give an introduction to the concept so that you have a broad idea of the concept, which allows you to pursue it more fully later (or not.)

Like most of these books, the main content is about 150 pages. I listened to this on audiobook, which may not have been the best choice, but it is what I had. I did not realize when I picked it up that a new edition had been published. In something as recent as Poststructuralism, the 20-year-old 1st edition was likely dated in ways I do not understand.

The second edition has an additional chapter, and chapter 2 is expanded and chapter 3 is restructured or retitled. Overall I feel like I have a helpful introduction to the subject, but I would not attempt to try to really write about my understanding or evaluate how well the author did in the presentation. The content seemed to be clear, and there was some good humor, but that is as far as I feel like I can go.

[caption id="attachment_60367" align="aligncenter" width="300"] 1st Edition[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_60368" align="aligncenter" width="300"] 2nd Edition[/caption]

I wanted to read this book to help me build a framework to understand the vague outlines of post-structuralism which I can hopefully fill in later as I read the actual theorist. The book starts with Saussure and a brief summary of structuralism. From there it proceeds to give brief summaries of a whole range of theorist:
Althusser, Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva, Lacan, Levi-strauss, Lyotard and even Zizek.

There was a heavy emphasis on Psychoanalysis and Lit theory which was disappointing as I hoped there would be more anthropologists. The main argument seemed to be that the project of post-structuralism was to question the reality of the signfied and thus empasis the subjective and contingent nature of language and thus truth. However, the book still believed that there were important political and artistic projects to be undertaken, though the emphasis seemed to be on projects not in the real world but in the towers of academia. Overall, the book was an easy read and probably just as good as spending a couple hours on wikipedia to build a strong base of knowledge.

I felt kind of smart for a couple of hours there.

A very short but well-done introduction to Post-structuralism. I listened to the audio version. The content and the presentment were fine.

Yup... it kinda lost me except for the 3rd chapter.

Recent events have reinvigorated my interest in the sociocultural factors that impact our sense of well-being.

The quality and character of our national discourse has abruptly changed, and the psychological impact it has had on nearly everyone I encounter is profound.

When the dominant cultural discourse is more reflective of ones personal world view, and when the national practices and policies are progressing in the direction of ones values, and in the service of ones interests, the feeling is of basic safety and optimism, and the impulse is to (a) maintain the status quo, and/or (b) increase the rate of progress.

When the dominant discourse is hostile to ones world view, and the national practices are in opposition to ones values and and interests, the feeling is well, pretty fuckin' awful.

I don't know about y'all, but I have been feeling pretty critical lately (for better or worse) and I have been craving some critical theory to (hopefully) lend acuity to my experience of the shit storm of wounding words and ideas that have been flying around the data-sphere as of late.

I read a bunch of critical theory in college, but that was a long time ago, and I have been in a very different head space for a good long time, and I wanted a little refresher.

So what the F is poststructuralism?

Poststructuralism is an intellectual movement, defined by its critical relationship to its predecessor, structuralism (hence the name).

Structuralism was a (primarily) European philosophical and linguistics movement (one of modernities many ism's) based on the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure, who along with Charles Sanders Pierce (pronounced purse) founded the field of semiotics i.e. the study of signs and symbols and their use/interpretation.

Saussure is most known for his theory of 'The Sign' which differentiates symbolic language into (a) signifier and (b) signified.

A Sign refers to anything with symbolic value. e.g. a logo, word, glyph, rude hand gesture etc.

According to Saussure, signs only have meaning because we (people) collectively decide and agree that they have meaning.

For example. The word -Prince- is a sign that refers to (among other things) the American singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and record producer known for his flamboyant stage presence, extravagant dress, makeup and wide vocal range.

The Signifier refers to a sign's physical form (such as a sound, printed word, or image) as distinct from its meaning. The signifier is in this example, the actual word 'Prince', the meaning of which is arbitrary i.e. the word has no intrinsic meaning, it's just a sound, and it can mean what ever we want it to, as long as we agree.

That particular example -Prince- was so arbitrary in fact, that the dude switched signifiers in mid career, from a word -Prince- to a freaky gender fucked squiggle, and implored us to refer to him as 'the artist formerly known as Prince. And it sort of worked.

The Signified refers to the actual thing indicated by the signifier. The signified in this example is the actual little purple dude who just recently went over the rainbow bridge to paisley paradise.

If you're familiar with Prince (or the artist formerly know as), than you may be capable of decoding (interpreting) all of these signifiers and assembling them into meaningful structures.

The fundamental question at the heart of both structuralism and poststructuralism is:

Is meaning the cause or effect of language?

If your a structuralist, your answer would be the latter.

According to structuralists, we tend to naively relate to our experience as primary, and the langue we use to describe our experiences as secondary. But the structuralists contend that the reverse is the actually case i.e. that language determines experience.

Roland Barthes was a French literary theorist, linguist and philosopher. Barthes explored a diverse range of ideas important to the inception of poststructuralism.

He's probably most know for this declaration of the 'death of the Author, and the birth of the reader.'

Premodern and early modern literary criticism assumed that it was necessary to understand the intentions of the author in order to understand the meaning of a text.

Barthes argued that this tactic closed down or institutionalized the meaning of a text, and thereby mummified it.

Barthes advocated for flexibility in interpretation of texts, and argued for a more direct experience of the text, and a more fluid and dynamic, more collective, more interactive interpretation.

Barthes argued that the readers interpretation was as valid (if not more) than the authors. Hence: the 'death of the author and the birth of the reader'.

One (embarrassing AF) example of this can be gleaned from another 90's pop-culture phenomenon (and guilty pleasure) Pearl Jam.

Their song Alive was initially conceived of as melancholy and pessimistic. But the fans interpreted the song as hopeful, and that eventually changed the meaning for everyone, including the band.

Jacques Derrida was like the rock Starr of poststructuralist critical theory. He is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction.

That's right, he's the guy who launched that meme into the noosphere. And when I say meme, I'm not talking laugh out loud cats here. I'm talking industrial strength, rip a fissure in the fabric of western thought type shit.

The deconstructavist approach entails smashing texts into bits and seeing where the meaning is. Derrida contended that the further down the meaning hole you go, the less meaning you will find. Definitions of words are made of words, which have definitions, which are made of words ad infinitum.

Deconstruction seeks to expose and subvert either/or type 'binary oppositions' that characterize thuggishly simplistic ways of thinking e.g. presence/absence, speech/writing, subject/object true/false etc.

One of my favorite pieces of graffiti could be found at the Taqueria where I used to eat when I was in high school.

It read:

"slogans limit thought"

I think think Derrida might add:

"so do binary oppositions".

Deconstructing Saussure:

Derrida ultimately criticizes the binary opposition of the signifier/signified. Derrida asserted that structuralism underestimated the primacy of written language.

Derrida asserts that writing is precisely the way we make (construct) sense. And apparently dollars to if you consider the art of the deal.

These arguments are particularly interesting in light of American constitutional law and politics.

One side wants to claim to understand the intentions of the framers of the constitution, and rigidly adhere to them. But only when it serves their interests. The other side of interprets the text as fluid, dynamic and evolving. But only when it serves their interests.

This seemingly frivolous battles over the meaning of texts have real world implications.

It feels worthwhile to resurrect the corpse of critical theory, in order to lift is the fog from the battlefield and sharpen the sword. If nothing else it's fun to precisely articulate The fact that the emperor has no clothes, save for his line of branded ties.

Significant influences on poststructuralism include Marxism, psychoanalysis and existential philosophy and phenomenology.

Important poststructuralist authors include Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Jean Baudrillard. They all critiqued aspects of structuralism and were considered to comprise poststructuralism's pantheon of heavyosity, although many of them rejected the moniker.

That's a pretty fussy crowd and I would expect nothing less.

Poststructuralist's created constructs and language to deconstruct language. In so doing they stumbled on to some deep territory just beyond the reach of language.

The thing the poststructuralist's were trying to do with language and thought i.e. disassemble the masters house with the masters own tools, seems quixotic but is actually quite important.

Critical theory pushed up against the edge of 3rd person perspectives, but could not surpass a certain boundary due to methodological constraints. That boundary is where the social sciences begin.

I'm a therapist.

I'm always trying to use language to deconstruct and explore an emotion, memory, idea, belief or intention.

I also have a background in the arts. In fact I was first introduced to pomo theory in art school in the 90's.

I'm very interested in the (vin diagram) zone of overlap between the humanities and the social sciences.

Therapy is as much an art form as a science. Therapy void of profundity is denatured. Therapy void of validity is effete.

European psychodynamic schools of psychotherapy are grounded in the humanities.

American cognitive behavioral schools of psychotherapy are grounded in scientific pragmatism.

Postmodern theory is like a bridge between the two worlds.