>structuralism
>post-structuralism
What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this? In the last two years I keep seeing it all the time on 4chan. And I heard it in real life a few times too, used by "hipsters" (it's a meaningless buzzword, but I don't know what to call them) and nerdy suburban white teenagers. Seems like ever since this Derrida guy got more popular and acknowledged, all the kids have been talking about this and name-dropping this "le epic structuralism" and "post-structuralism". Is (post-)structuralism an epic new meme?
Why do people keep using this so much? Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured? Can someone explain this to me? And what exactly are these terms? Why are they being mentioned so often? And is it somehow related to "deconstruction" (and what is that?, I read that no one knows, not even the guy who coined the term)? And what do people usually refer to when they mention structuralism or post-structuralism? What areas/activities or studies? Is it related to philosophy? Is it a movement in philosophy? Is it related to arts? Literature? Sociology? Psychology? What is it? Is it somehow related to modernism and metamodernism?
What books should I read to learn more about it?
Am I first supposed to start with the Greeks, all le ancient philosophers, then all the relevant philosophers in the last 1000 years, you know, Kant, Heidegger Foucault, Saussure, Descartes, Locke, Marx, Hegel, Sartre and everyone else? If that's the case then forget about it. But I doubt any of you actually read works from all of them and are still capable of understanding (post-)structuralism.
currently doing an essay on poststructural feminism and rape in the united states military
quite interesting Tbh
>>881629
Thuy Johnston (a name that (like Phuc Stevenson (named (by me, not his parents (government attorneys (I know what you(Katrina?)’re thinking, how did lawyers raise a postman and under what kind of class system does this novel operate?))) after the 2011 NBA champion Deshawn Stevenson)) implies (to assumption-prone readers) that Mrs. Johnston was pro-trad enough to take her husband’s (we’re being implicitly socially conservative (by not acknowledging the likelihood that she’s gay (or adopted or a pop star with a stage name)) for the sake of space (yes le parentheses man is economical as fuck with space)) last name but still asserted enough cultural dominance to give her child a decidedly ethnic (to Americans (UT didn’t stand for U of Tel Aviv or what have you)) first name. Marv “Yellow Fever” Johnston’s dainty Asian bride has the cultural steering wheel (or maybe they’re sticks for her (that’s too absurd to be earnestly racist (also I’m Asian (half (I mean Obama can make black jokes (is that the same thing? Yellow peril and Jim Crow Seattle but look at China’s GDP compared to every country in West Africa (which is to say we’re not in the same boat (which is to say I’m sorry for all the ching-chong jokes (but I still get the appropriation pass to name my characters Phuc and Thuy and Trang (oh shit you haven’t met her yet (“Trang West is an 11 year-old Nepali yak-milking enthusiast at George W. Bush (Honor the Texas flag (“just like you like it”)) Middle School …”)))))))))))) is a grad student at UT. She’s with Wynn despite a 7-year age gap and the murky (is it murky if she’s a woman? (yes)) ethics of a TA fucking a freshman undergrad. She’d actually be a rapist in a few states since...
Structuralism and post-structuralism are opposites. Structuralism tends to be obsessed with tradition and duality while Post-structuralism seeks to deconstruct everything.
For instance, structuralists will say the male/female conflict is an important theme of human society, while a post-structuralist will say gender doesn't exist.
>>881629
Structuralism says their are inherent patterns of organization in shit, post-structuralists say nah, these are all artificial and manmade.
Structuralism stresses the significance of social structures, like laws, institutions, environment, etc., in the development of ideas, individuals, societies, theoretical validity and soundness, production of scientific knowledge, etc. Post-structuralism says that these structures are unintelligible for one reason or another. deconstruction seeks to find the lack of meaning in a text by psychoanalyzing the author and examining the circumstances of the writing of the text. It's identical to Heideggerianism, if I'm to believe people on 4chan.
Or something.
It's all native to France and French academic discourse. Honestly, just read The Poverty of Theory by Thompson.
>>882241
Le ebin spook meme
>>882241
What you mean to say is "I'm a structuralist"
People want the power to uncover profound, contrarian meanings to novels, poems, political/historical events, films, TV shows, and entire philosophies without having to do the work necessary for understanding these things. Instead of remaining in semi-ignorance during the years while you are developing your aesthetic sense and worldview by doing a tremendous amount of research and using your judgment to develop non-conceptual modes of understanding, it is easier to filter these various events and types of media through an easy-to-understand, pseudo-scientific system that uses obscure terminology and concepts. With these obscure terms and concepts, you not only have to not think for yourself but you can delude yourself into thinking that you hold the skeleton key to existence and you, and only you, are euphoric because you are enlightened by your own intelligence.
>>883402
>non-conceptual modes of understanding
dude how is this not what you'r ecriticizing
>>882241
post structalrism is about considering the reasons why someone wrote something, their background, and how that affects why they did what they did.
Structuralism is when the author is the ultiamte authority. If they say something means a certain thing or that they had a certain motivation that's what it is.
Post structuralism is good because it let's us break past subversive ideological ideas in the humanities. I can take the Liberal's paper saying that white men ruin everything and explain how this is a result of their resentment towards power structures. Conservatives hate post-structuralism because it was made by the french and Derrida is basically the model of smug, 2deep4, philosophers.
>>883482
Is Barthes' The Death of the Author somehow related to structuralism or post-structuralism?
>>881629
>What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this?
you mean your sudden noticing of the obsession? people have been steady dickriding poststruc since the 70s, its just now you and the dumbfucks on 4chan are just catching on
>Am I first supposed to start with the Greeks, all le ancient philosophers, then all the relevant philosophers in the last 1000 years, you know, Kant, Heidegger Foucault, Saussure, Descartes, Locke, Marx, Hegel, Sartre and everyone else? If that's the case then forget about it.
yes. and yes you should forget about it
continental philosophy is simply a unified perspective that destroys dichotomies and dualities.
it understands how language creates culture (and vice versa) and tries to deconstruct that linguistic dialectic. when you deconstruct dialects, though, nothing can really be successfully said. no one-sided statements can ever be made.
when you read continental philosophy, think of it in taoist of zen buddhist terms.
>>883840
>taoist of zen buddhist
What.
>>881629
post anything = circular mental gymnastics
there is no post anything, ideas are distinct and living principles that manifest in different ways.
>>883482
>I can take the Liberal's paper saying that white men ruin everything and explain how this is a result of their resentment towards power structures.
so this
>>883840
That's actually completely wrong. Continental philosophy is hardly a unified perspective, it's a geographically and temporally defined school of thought.
>>881629
think of 'post-structuralism' not as temporally after 'structuralism' (although it is) but rather in opposition to. structuralism vs post-structuralism can be best understood in relation to sensualism vs anti-sensualism. it is useful to analyze this dichotomy via proxy because sensualism concerns solely the being qua being and does not penetrate the 'structure' that mediates phenomena (e.g. objects and events as they are understood by human consciousness) and the realm of platonic forms. Watch this brief video for an explanation-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPt8kAL7vTY
Post-structuralism is just communist subterfuge in an era when the Establishment was conservative.
>Communism fails because the real world filters for bullshit
>communist intellectuals: "hmm, what if we attack reality itself? Maybe communism will become viable that way"
Notice how, as the Establishment is becoming increasingly leftist, they are abandoning their distrusts of grand metanarratives and going full "YOU DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY, DO YOU? IT'S 2016"
We really need to understand that nothng, absolutely nothing that comes from the pen of left-wing intellectuals in sincere. Even their breathing is done in the name of revolutionary praxis.
>>881656
embedded clauses like wow.
>>887419
Where does the joke end and you become the joke?
>>881629
why you don't mention Schopenhauer? forget Hegel, faggot.
>>887419
The "distrusts of grand metanarratives" hurts the right just as much as the left.
Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
We really need to understand that nothng, absolutely nothing that comes from the pen of /pol/-wing anti-intellectuals is sincere. Even their breathing is done in the name of ranting-about-imagery-Marxist-conspiracies praxis.
>>890284
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
Yes, by some--there are plenty of useful idiots who don't even know what a meta-narrative is and, just like religious conservatives don't consider their religion too be a mere metanarrative.
>>889974
Burned!!!
>>887419
The "distrusts of grand metanarratives" hurts the right just as much as the left.
Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
We really need to understand that nothng, absolutely nothing that comes from the pen of /pol/-wing anti-intellectuals is sincere. Even their breathing is done in the name of ranting-about-imagery-Marxist-conspiracies praxis.
To understand Derrida you only need Plato, Hegel, Saussure and Heidegger.
While his ideas are certainly complex the main gist of deconstruction is not really that complex and is somewhat outdated in current philosophical circles.
American academics are always 30 years behind continental Europe and will masturbate to everything that comes out of France for at least another decade.
Proof of this is Judith Butler, her though isn't really that complex yet you see her everywhere. Yet it took Zizek only one chapter on one of his books about Lacan to demolish her.
>>890639
Which book?
>>890665
I don't remember exactly but I think it was in the Ticklish subject.
>>881629
Here's a quick run down in terms of post-modernism, at least in my field
>Regurgitation of anything is not objective because it's based on interpretation
>Sources are thus meaningless and fact both is and isn't because of interpretive bias
>Leopold von Ranke is generating shit tons of electricity in his grave due to how fast he is spinning in it
tl;dr
Post-structuralism a shit
>Altermodern
>Anti-anti-art
>Hypermodernity
>Intentism
>Fluxus
>Metamodernism
>Structuralism
>Post-structuralism
>Neomodern
>Serialism
>Nouveau realisme
>New Sincerity
>Spectralism
>Postmodernism
>Post-postmodernism
>Remodernism
>Remodernist film
>Stuckism International
>Transmodernism
I really want to like the art world but god damn art critics sure make it hard.
In answer to your question, here's a very, very brief and incomplete history of the developments of structuralism and post-structuralism in terms of linguistics.
Once upon a time, in the 19th century, most people believed that language was referential. This means that there was some relationship between the word 'dog' (the signifier) and the concept of a 'dog' (the signified) - maybe in the evolution of language, the word 'dog' evolved from a sound that was similar to the barking of a dog for example.
Along comes a Swiss man called Saussure in the early 20th century. Saussure disagrees. Saussure thinks that that language is differential rather than referential. He argues that there is no inherent link whatsoever between the concept of a dog (signified) and the three letters that make up 'dog' (signifier). The word 'dog' came to symbolise the concept of a dog through its relationship to other words, so that a 'dog' is defined as such because it is not a 'cat' – a better example in this case might be the words 'light' and 'dark' – 'light' has no inherent link to the concept of light, but takes on meaning because it is defined in binary opposition to 'dark'. Saussure thus believed that all language was constructed primarily through binary opposition – meaning was given to words by contrasting said meanings against their opposites. In saying this, Saussure was one of the first 'structuralists', because he believed language was constructed around a fundamental 'structure' of binary opposition.
>>890890
There are plenty of famous structuralists, so I'll talk about one of the most famous, a French anthropologist called Levi-Strauss who applied structuralism to the fundamental working of the 'human mind' and all human societies/communities. Levi-Strauss was interested in finding a 'universal structure' of kinship in primitive societies, and believed that all 'kinship' was structured around four roles – mother, father, brother, sister. It was from this elementary structure that incest taboo developed in all such societies (the full theory is too complex for me to try and explain so just read it here if you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_theory). Again, applying structure to anthropology.
What about 'post-structuralisism'? Someone in this thread has already mentioned Barthes and his 'Death of the author'. Barthes work straddles the line between structuralism and post-structuralism. Barthes accepted Saussuers belief that language was 'differential' rather than 'referential'. But whereas Saussure believed that the 'meaning' of words existed entirely within the 'structures of language', Barthes argued that meaning was also embedded within cultural and social systems of meaning – political, cultural, religious. The word 'tree' for example takes on different meanings within different systems – politically, a symbol of 'green politics', economically, as a potential resource. This is pretty obvious really, words have multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings. And it is a rejection of the rigid structure of binary opposition that Saussure drew. In retrospect, whilst 'light' and 'dark' make sense, it seems pretty silly to try and attribute a binary opposition to 'dog'.
>>890893
The effect of this is to 'destabilize' the meaning of words from a single 'structure of language'. Whereas fitting a word like 'democracy' into a single system of binary language opposition fixes it to having only one 'true' meaning, Barthes approach meant that there was no fixed, single meaning of the word. 'Democracy' in an American context describes not just a political system of governance, but also certain values and virtues – 'Liberty', 'Prosperity' or 'the American dream'. For Nazi's, the same word takes on an entirely different meaning, of 'moral degeneracy' or 'weakness'. This is sort of the base principle behind Barthes 'Death of the Author' where he argued that the 'meaning' that the author intended a novel to have was irrelevant – the author had no more authority over deciding what a novel 'meant' than the reader. This is starting to move towards post-structuralism, because it is going against the argument that everything can be attributed and fixed to fundamental structures.
>>890894
Derrida and Foucault are the big dogs of post-structuralism. As a literary critic, Derrida's arguably took Barthe's ideas on multiple meanings further to their logical conclusion. For Derrida, what, Barthes 'plurality' of meanings for a word/symbol/signifier meant was that there was a fundamental 'instability' and openness of meaning in language. Applying this to a 'text' (like a novel, political poster, film, you tube video, ect ect) means that it has no 'final' or 'true' explanation/meaning. Derrida was therefore a proponent of 'deconstruction' – breaking down a text from different approaches (Marxist or racial for example) in order to uncover its multiple and ultimately limitless different, and contradictory' meanings. A structuralist would try and 'decode' the text to uncover the fundamental structures that governed its meaning – a post structuralist like Derrida would argue there were no fundamental structures that governed it, and no true meaning to the text. This is what is behind Derrida's assertion that “there is nothing outside of texts” - external context like the authors intention or the political/historical environment in which the text was written is irrelevant to its meaning, which cannot ever be limited. This is post-structuralism.
Foucault meanwhile argued that the 'elementary structures' upon which structuralists based their work were in fact entirely artificial and constructed by those which power. For Foucault, everything is a power game, “power is everywhere”. Foucault was interested in 'systems of knowledge' – those with a 'will to power' seek to control and define knowledge or the truth as a way of domination. Those 'natural phenomena' of gender, race or sexuality therefore were in fact historically constructed, often by a 'totalizing discourse', a system of language and signs within which were contained statements of 'truth' and 'objective knowledge'. So lets take a specific example.
>>890900
An example of this is Foucault's theories on madness, where he argues that the modern classification of the mad as 'mentally ill', and their 'treatment' is an example of dominant power in society. The language of 'mentally ill' shows the de-legitimisation of abnormal and alternative behaviour or world views through a medical discourse and control of knowledge by a dominant power. The 'expertise' of the doctor is actually the control of scientific knowledge that allows him to classify the mad as 'wrong'. For Foucault, doctors are put in charge of 'treating' the mad not because they have the knowledge to cure, but because they have the 'moral authority of society' in doing so. This might sound, well, insane, but that a particularly extreme example – Foucault was using it more as an example of his general ideas rather than actually believing it.
For more on 'discourse' is, I find this very helpful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvEgETtPBDI. While I don't necessarily agree with the guys analysis, its a good explanation. The point of it all is that the 'structures' that govern stuff like gender and so on are actually socially constructed – they are strucutres only because we make them so. In the case of gender/sexuality for example, the real word actually blurs the lines, or simply deifies such binary structures of masculine/feminine all together – look at any /pol/ thread about 'masculinity', and you'll see that what people are fighting over are competing and contradictory visions of what it is to a 'real man'.
The post-structuralist would take away from this that there is no single definition of masculinity, not such thing as a 'real man' – masculinity is entirely artificial, dependent on the cultural, political or historical context.
>>890908
So, to answer your specific questions...
>What's the deal with people's sudden obsession with this? Is (post-)structuralism an epic new meme?
No one seriously calls them self a structuralist any more. Post-structuralism, as part of post-modernism, is arguably the most important development in humanities fields of the late 20th - 21st century.
>Why do people keep using this so much? Is it to show that they know a new word or something? To seem cultured?
No its a thing - but its quite likely that a lot of 'hipsters' use the word without really understanding what it. I've provided a very brief explanation, but I still find it hard to get my head round the details of it.
>Can someone explain this to me?
Hopefully I have.
>What areas/activities or studies? Is it related to philosophy? Is it a movement in philosophy? Is it related to arts? Literature? Sociology? Psychology? What is it?
Philosophy - It arguably is philosohpy, but it's very much of the continental school, and so most analytical philosophers don't like it much and the analytical school dominates most american/british philosophy departments to my knowledge.
Arts/Literature - Yes, these are the primary fields in which it is prominent. Also in history, and human geography
Sociology/Psychology - Less so, since they consider themselves partially a science, and the search for 'empirical knowledge' directly contradicts much post-modernist work. Foucault's work on discourse is relevant to sociology in my opinion though.
>Is it somehow related to modernism and metamodernism?
Po-struc is relevant to po-modernism, not modernism. Metamodernism is a literal meme, there's no such defined thing yet really, no one has decided what it is.
>What books should I read to learn more about it?
Foucault - Discipline and Punish, The history of sexuality.
Derrida - Don't bother, nothing he writes makes sense. Just get a short introduction to post-modernism/structuralism or something.
>>890938
Oh, and Barthes "Death of the Author"
>>891135
I'm a history student at Oxford, writing essays about this stuff is more or less all I do. Also I get very annoyed when /pol/ goes on about 'muh cultural marxism' and 'muh post-modernism' with basically no understanding of what that actually is, so I thought I'd clear it up.
>>891325
>cultural marxism
>social darwinism
What do these terms mean and why do I see them all the time on /pol/?
>>891325
Are you maybe on RYM or goodreads, can I contact you somewhere outside of 4chan?
>>890284
>The "distrusts of grand metanarratives" hurts the right just as much as the left.
Of course it does, it was invented for that purpose.
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
Soviet communism, not Marxism as a revolutionary culture, which all post-structuralists adhere too.
>>890900
>This is what is behind Derrida's assertion that “there is nothing outside of texts” - external context like the authors intention or the political/historical environment in which the text was written is irrelevant to its meaning
This hurts my brain and explains more why I can't take those people seriously.
>>890908
> The post-structuralist would take away from this that there is no single definition of masculinity, not such thing as a 'real man' – masculinity is entirely artificial, dependent on the cultural, political or historical context.
So... Structuralism says that stuff appears out of structures, and post structuralism adds that structures are multiple and changing and that stuff appears the same way.
There's no contradiction there... Unless someone ever claimed that the only effective structures were eternal and universal. But I can't imagine that it happened, it would be stupid.
>>892028
I don't think I've really provided good examples of deconstruction and discourse theory in action and made it sound more complex than it is, so lets apply it to this tweet by the deputy prime minister of Russia, treating the tweet as a 'text'.
What does the Tweet mean? Well the most obvious 'meaning' apparent, and the one that was most likely intended by Dmitri is to contrast Putin and the leopard (strong, brave and fierce) with Obama and the poodle (weak, soft and rather silly looking). But although this is what the author Dmitri probably intended it to mean, the actual meaning is not decided and fixed by that. We could de-construct the tweet and approach it from an entirely different angle. It could be argued for example that one meaning of the tweet is to contrast Russian barbarity with American civilisation, with the leopards violence, feral nature and stupidity contrasted with the poodles elegance, civilised calm manner and intelligence. It could be argued that the fact Putin has chosen to portray himself with a leopard proves his fundamental insecurity of power and position which he must compensate for, whilst Obama, supreme commander of the USA, has no such need. You could even approach the deconstruction through sexuality that turns everything on its head. The tweet's meaning is that Putin, the closet, small, submissive homosexual chose a powerful, strong and dangerous animal because of his unconscious desire to be dominated, compared to the taller, more masculine, stronger Obama who chooses a tame and obedient poodle as his partner. This is clearly not the meaning Dmitri wanted to convey, but what he intended is irrelevant to the limitless, multiple and contradictory possible meanings of the tweet. Dmitri is by no means “wrong” in any way, but his interpretation as author is no more valid than any other – hence the 'death of the author' in terms of his influence on the text.
>>892168
What about discourse? To see how this tweet might be an example of Foucault's discourse, lets return to Dmitri's intended meaning of Russian strength vs American softness, and analyse it through the lens of gender. Discourse is language/symbolism that contains implicit “statements of truth” about the world, which reinforce power dynamics. So, what the tweet is saying explicitly is that Putin is more fit to rule and hold power than Obama – this is very obvious. But the way it conveys that is at least partially reliant on ideas of gender roles/stereotypes? Why is Putin strong and fit to rule? Because he is masculine, as seen here, with a potentially dangerous, fast, strong animal that he is dominating and controlling (if only he had his shirt off as well..). Why is Obama weak and not powerful? Because there is something very effeminate about the poodle he is holding – I would argue the well-groomed poodle has a particular cultural resonance with female/gay dog owners and femininity.
So, crucially, what is the text saying? It is saying that Putin is fit to hold power because of his masculinity and manhood, whilst Obama is not because of his effeminacy. And what that is based on is the fundamental idea that males are meant to rule and females are fundamentally unsuited and unfit to hold political power. This is the implicit 'statement of truth' behind the text than makes it an example of what feminists might call 'sexist discourse', because it is implicitly claiming and reinforcing the idea that power must be masculine, submission must be feminine. Thus, it reinforces the power men hold over women in society. This is at its essence what Foucault s' assertion that 'power comes from everywhere' is all about. You can believe that women are actually fundamentally inferior and unfit to hold power whilst still accepting the idea of discourse.
>>892143
>There's no contradiction there...
Well the two aren't directly contradictory. That's why its 'post-structuralism' rather than anti-structiralism' - post-structuralists have used structuralist thinking as the base of their ideas and developed from that base.
>Unless someone ever claimed that the only effective structures were eternal and universal. But I can't imagine that it happened, it would be stupid.
This is what Sassure and Levi-strauss were arguing - Sassure that binary opposition was the eternal and universal structure of language, Levi-Strauss that binary opposition in the mind and through 'kinship' was the eternal and universal mental structuring that governed the development of all human societies. It might sound stupid now but these people were working 50-100 years ago.
>>892168
>>892170
Wow, that's maybe a little bit too much (it's nice and all though, very pleasant to read).
It just reminded me (the original sentence) of a very painful session in college where we had to make an analysis of a german external politics speech and when I asked the date of said speech, I was told it was "irrelevant". I respond that, I sensed it was vaguely 20th century, but it was, to me, very important to know if it was before WW1, Interwar or after WW2, especially considering external politics, but no, "context is irrelevant".
And though it can be refreshing and somehow good to be able to think outside the boxes to go for an analysis of a historical piece without context, the only discussion we had after that really felt like intellectual wanking...
But I think it's because I'm much more attracted to materialistic approaches, theory coming from practices and not the opposite.
That was a lovely analysis of the tweet though but well, much ado for nothing I guess (think).
>>892244
Are you German?
>>892248
Oh no, God Forbids! I'm French (it was during a class in Germany though, so you weren't totally wrong).
See how many intel you have now...!?
>>892255
>See how many intel you have now...!?
Why do you frogs punctuate like that? Do you do it in your mother-tongue, too, or do you confine this kind of writing to places like 4chan?
>>892260
I blame a terrific success in highschool about Sarraute, can't help to put those damn ellipsis... everywhere...
And yeah also, I'm in 4chan so...
>>892244
Well of course that's more an example of a strictly literary criticism of a text, but coming from a historians point of view, we don't do that - historical context is obviously of prime importance.
So when post-structuralists historians deconstruct texts, they don't allow the meaning to be limited by the author, but that doesn't mean abandoning context. Its less 'the text can mean anything' and more 'the text can mean anything BUT given the period we are studying, here is probably what it meant to contemporaries...'
I would argue that historians are not so interested in the full impacts of derrida's deconstruction - they have taken the useful bits about deconstructing a text but not the assertion that 'there is nothing outside the text'. Historians have taken a sort of middle ground when it comes to post-modernism basically. They have accepted that we can't ever really know what happened in the past completely accurately, but that we have to at least try. Put simply, there is no single 'right answer' or 'interpretation' of a historical event, but there are plenty of 'wrong answers/interpretations' that should be discarded.
Discourse is far far more influential and important for historians - they thing I did about discourse and the Tweet is what a lot of historians are engaged in.
Interestingly, whilst that sort of post-modernist 'nothing outside the text approach' originated in literary academia and influenced history, we now have the reverse - literary academics are into the idea of 'new historicism' now, which is to place all literary works (novels/films/whatever) firmly within their historical and cultural context. The two are not contradictory.
>>892315
Historians honestly only care about analysis of discourse because history is based on the study of documents and their contexts. Deconstruction has always struck me as naive in ways that history isn't. History as a discipline is basically beyond the scope of deconstruction because it starts from many of the same premises, methodologically. I'm not sure what "postmodern" historiography would even look like, tbqh.
>writing a book about how books don't mean anything
>>892327
>Historians honestly only care about analysis of discourse because history is based on the study of documents and their contexts.
And only some of them are texts... Not that deconstruction isn't doable with archeological evidences, but well, it doesn't seem as suited as with texts.
>I'm not sure what "postmodern" historiography would even look like
Same but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like the answer...
>>890890
What a great thread, this was a nice read.
>>892417
There are a lot of people who do that.
>>892366
>but well, it doesn't seem as suited as with texts.
Really, if you wanted to deconstruct a large and complex enough artifact in a serious capacity, you'd have to be demonstrably familiar with the whole thing. For instance, the Pyramids: how would one go about deconstructing those? Could they offer an account that satisfies anybody outside of the most obsessive-deconstructive circles?
>>892417
We can't discuss this unless you first define (to state or set forth the meaning of) the words (word representing a unit of language) "annoying", "right", "change" and "ideas".
>>892459
Post structuralist are essentially saying that everything can be and not be at the same time
>>892470
Is that the essence of postmodernism?
>structuralism
>post-structuralism
>bitching whenever someone uses "good" or "bad"
>asking people to first define the terms before being allowed to use them
>context matters
>context doesn't matter
post-structuralism is cancer, fucking ivory tower bullshit
so unnecessary
>>892478
>asking people to first define the terms before being allowed to use them
I would argue this is essential to proper argument. If you are having an argument and use a certain word that you personally define as having a certain meaning, but the person you are arguing with understands it as having a different meaning, and they aren't aware of this contradiction in meaning between them, then the argument is never going to be constructive.
Obviously there are times when asking to define a term is not useful/helpful, but when you start to talk about big concepts like for example 'modernity' or 'racism' then defining what those mean is the first thing that should be dealt with.
>>892472
It makes one wonder how could something that goes against one of the most fundamental principles of philosophy gain so much prominence to the point of being its central focus
>>892485
But who are the people you can discuss things with on that level?
It's not very likely you're going to encounter them that often in real life.
>>892487
Philosophy has always been a big argument between sophists and non-sophists. The names change, but the arguments don't.
Derrida is the big shit. If you already know what authors like Blanchot, Artaud, Foucault, Bataille, Freud globally say, you can read his Writing & Difference. What seems interesting about post-structuralist or post-modernist writers and philosophers is to come and return among their references.
Great thread with some people who obviously know there shit. I just have a question from a dumbass.
Essentially, it is claimed that logical positivism is kinda shit because by saying that it's impossible to know about metaphysics, they are claiming something about metaphysics. Why doesn't Post-Structuralism have this critique? Doesn't it use langauge to essentially say that using langauge is a dead end? Isn't that a bit off?
Keep it up everyone, lovin the thread.
>>892656
I don't know how widespread that claim is, I made and/or posted in multiple threads involving that argument it over the course the course of a week when positivism was a big topic here.
Post-structuralism takes arguments and brushes them aide. Eventually it just admits that it exists to make its practitioners money and walks away with a sht-eating grin on its face while its opponent raves about reason and definitions.
>>892711
>Eventually it just admits that it exists to make its practitioners money and walks away with a sht-eating grin on its face while its opponent raves about reason and definitions.
Has anyone had the honesty to come out and say this? That would probably make me respect the whole thing a lot more.
>>892726
The second they do that they're almost traditional Marxists and can't be post-structuralists anymore without difficulty. I haven't come across the explicit admission but I've gotten that impression from trying to figure out what universities effectively do in society. One major function is jobs. Humanities research may deserve funding, but it had to compete with other fields of study. You have to produce a mystique around your function and the function of your school of thought if you want to make a living writing about nonsense sprinkled with genuine insight that isn't worth separating from the philosophical tradition.
Honestly, the whole debate played out in ancient Greece before it did today. We still haven't figured out if Tthrasymachus was a sophos or a sophist. That's partly because there's no answer to the question, "Was Thrasymachus a wise man, or a fool masquerading as one?", at least not in Plato; this much is implied from the beginning. The entire philosophical tradition since Plato is predicated on the willingness to accept the fact that there is a gap between gibberish and a proper account. Anyone who reverts to a pre-Platonic form of discourse is engaging in sophistry. I get the impression that a lot of these people are doing this for the same reason Sophists did it before the Socratic revolution: they had to make money and they were good at getting people to listen to and read their accounts of X. The only difference today is scale and perspective. We're within the dialectic of postmodernity. The Greek dialectic effectively ended a long time ago.
i kind of want to fuck derrida
Here's a screenshot from the anon earlier in the thread that summed things up nicely.
>>890908
>The post-structuralist would take away from this that there is no single definition of masculinity, not such thing as a 'real man' – masculinity is entirely artificial, dependent on the cultural, political or historical context.
but this holds for the structuralists, since the structuralist thinks that everything depends on some structure, but structures change constantly through space and time.
>>892315
>literary academics are into the idea of 'new historicism' now, which is to place all literary works (novels/films/whatever) firmly within their historical and cultural context.
so this is structuralism ?
>>892765
>I get the impression that a lot of these people are doing this for the same reason Sophists did it before the Socratic revolution: they had to make money and they were good at getting people to listen to and read their accounts of X. The only difference today is scale and perspective
only because people love to cling to their pleasures they got form listening to stories about the world. People love Entertainment too much to stop craving to stories, be they categorised as scientific, philosophical, or religious, fictional.
>>881629
I've studied philosophy for some time now and I get the sense that though folks like Derrida and other post-structuralists are still widely read--and I have no qualms with this--the whole post-structuralism thing has died down significantly from what it was ten to twenty years ago--I also have no qualms with this either.
Note: This isn't true of Foucault, who I think is really important in many departments, especially anthro. Even in English departments, Derrida isn't read like he used to be.
I feel like post-structuralism had a good run, and still has things to offer, but so many people got so into it that they started writing super shitty essays and books, just to try to sound like Derrida and company. And I'm happy that that seems to be on the decline. (And to state the obvious, that's what happens when any "school" becomes a "school" or otherwise sufficiently popular).
Derrida was at least someone many folks had heard of and had likely read in non-continental philosophy departments. Now at most he's just heard of. Again, it's different with Foucault, but I take the case of Derrida to be pretty wide spread among non-continental departments (assuming that academic departments provide an accurate cross-section of "relevant," or widely read, or influential, or worth reading philosophy, all of which is debatable). Now (in non-continental departments) most young faculty and in-coming grad students (in my experience) have an irrational hatred of Derrida. I like much of what the guy has to say, so I find the irrational hatred bizarre and unwarranted, but in this kind of academic setting it might be for the best, since despite Derrida, it produced super shitty spin offs.
>>893535
And if you want to read Derrida, I say just go for it. You could go down the rabbit hole and read Heidegger, and then read a bunch of Greek stuff, and then read Nietzsche and a bunch more of the Greeks, but really I'd just say start with Derrida. Pick a few things to read, re-read it, and re-read it. Maybe get some secondary stuff, commentary, or what-have-you. Then start to read stuff from the historical backdrop, which will most likely include at least Heidegger (Derrida took himself to be responding to H., which is why I mention him, though Derrida, as pretty much any philosopher would, writes on tons of other figures from the history of philosophy himself--Plato, Aristotle, Marx, Nietzsche, etc.
>>890716
Exactly. This is why nobody knows jackshit about anything involving the Humanities. Sociology, Communication, Philosophy, even 'Political Science.' It's just a vast ocean of darkness because dogshit like this won back in 94 when we realized reality is politically incorrect therefore it must be distorted. (The true function of a 'modern' Liberal Arts degree is obfuscate.)
"new"
goddam, this commie fear really fucked up your education merricans.
Jacques Derrida himself is long dead, and post-structuralism goes back to the first quarter of the last century.
>>883502
yes. if you read that you should also read Foucault's "what is an author?"
both structuralism and post-structuralism can be summed up simply as thus: do your own homework
all this post-modern poststructuralism metadeconpremetcopecmstruct is a giant bunch of bullshit
don't even try and understand it. there's nothing worthwhile or interesting within them
it's just layers and layers of bullshit on top ofbullshit getting more and more specialized and exclusive,
it's university bullshit
my thoughts are that if an idea or concept can't be fairly easily explained to the next person, then either
1. the person doing the explaining doesn't really know what they're talking about or
2. there's nothing to even talk about to begin with
take this for example:
>The "distrusts of grand metanarratives" hurts the right just as much as the left.
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
see it makes the guy seem like a knowledgale and intelligent person, using these words with quite vague definitions/meanings so confidently, "he must really know what he's talking about".
And yet, time and time again I have noticed that when you actually ask someone like this to actually explain what they're saying, they simply can't. It's just bullshit. Not even HE knows what he's talking about. It's not even proper language, he's just repeating the bullshit babble his lecturers taught him.
Seriously, explain what
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
ACTUALLY means. What are you actually saying?
What's marxism, what's a grand meta-narrative, what's a post-modern field? What individual people are doing the citing? And in what journals? Give me the job titles of the people you are referring to in the "post-modern" field.
Always, when you try and get these stupid people to talk in specifics, to actually try and prove they're talking about SOMETHING, they fail. They simply can't do it. "You just don't understand", "You're not grasping the meaning", bla bla bla. Idiot fucking losers is what they are.
>>892485
>word that you personally define as having a certain meaning
u wot? u can't just personally define a word that's not how language works..
>>890900
I hate to be that guy but "there is nothing outside of texts" is a ubiqutous mistranslation of Derrida - it is orginally "there is no Outside-text". It doesn't mean that external context is meaningless (and I haven't really encountered any deconstructionists would argue that; it's more of a New Criticism thing) but rather there is no "outside", master Signifier that can be accessed to reach the text's final, stable, objective meaning.
But otherwise solid stuff, a+ love your work
>>893421
See >>892195
>>893860
Ok, lets break this down and explain it, at least in terms of history.
>What's marxism
Straight from Wikipedia - "Marxism is a method of socioeconomic analysis, originating from the mid-to-late 19th century works of German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, that analyzes class relations and societal conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and a dialectical view of social transformation." Ok, so Marxism is pretty broad, but at its core it is the belief that all history, society, culture, and any change in them, is based on the struggle between economic classes with fundamentally different interests - serf/noble, bourgeoisie/proletariat.
>what's a grand meta-narrative
The idea that all history can be summed up within an overarching story, with certain rules of history. For British history, there is the example of 'whig history' in the 19th century, the belief that all english history could be summed up as the gradual triumph of liberty and limited government over absolutism and despotism, from the Magna Carta to the triumph of the liberal party in the 19th century. A 'progressive liberal' meta narrative might suggest all history is a slow and inevitable move of progress towards more enlightened, free, liberal societies, which is inevitable despite setbacks like the Nazi's. A '/pol/' metanarrative of history might suggest that all history is of white's building civilisation against non-white barbarity, always dogged by the 'eternal jew' who strives to destroy and degrade white society. A 'post-modern' field just refers to a humanities field like literature, arts or history that has been influenced by post-modern ideas.
So:
>The "distrusts of grand metanarratives" hurts the right just as much as the left.
To distrust grand meta narratives is to be skeptical of any claim that history is moving in one direction towards an inevitable final result.
>>894120
Left wing academics have traditionally applied this towards right-wing meta-narratives of history, like Whig history (or perhaps /pol/ 'history') in order to challenge the claim that tradition and the current order are on the inevitable side of history.
But there is no reason this can't be applied to left 'meta-narratives' of liberal progress about being on the 'right side of history'. Think of the John Oliver meme about 'it is the current year 2014' and you get what I mean.
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
Marxism, which paints all history as a struggle between the classes that will inevitably lead to a communist utopia and the dissolution of class, is a meta-narrative of history which post-modernists have been skeptical of, rather than a /pol/ suggestion that all post-modern academics are just evil marxists trying to bring down the fall of western civilization.
I get your point that university writers often don't explain things as well as they can, but that doesn't mean they don't acually mean anything. Its more that they tend to be conversing with other academics, and so they have this agreed on terminology like 'meta-narratives' which make perfect sense, and doesn't need to be explained every time, but appears incomprehensible to non-academics.
>>893902
Ah, fair enough. I had always assumed the mistranslation was 'there is nothing outside text' as oppose to 'there is nothing outside THE text'. Your explanation makes a lot more sense, thanks for clearing it up.
>>894171
I think there are issues here with how we categorise certain thinkers within schools rather than self-identification. Post-structuralism is referring to the movements after structuralism, that both built upon and critiqued structuralism's limits. It's not necessarily antithetical to structuralism - Foucault, for example, has a very strong structuralist backbone to a lot of his work.
Why would anyone learn about this?
>>895095
France, 1789
>>881629
They're two major attempts to deal with the problem of humanism other than heidegger or praxis.
>>882241
no, because post-structuralism denies even observation
you can observe what works in societies, and that is typically conservative values, values that sustain order - like confucsianism
>>887385
I am too high for this now
are these autistic gay people?
>>896861
It's Tim and Eric, the comedy duo.
>>892454
The question I asked about the Pyramids in this post was somewhat serious. can anyone answer it? How would one go about deconstructing an artifact like that?
>>890938
>No one seriously calls them self a structuralist any more.
Why not? You told me what they are, but why do people think they are right?
>>892168
This is dumb. Putin uses the picture because it gets him some popularity with the Russians peasants, which is a cheap way to keep them in line.
Obama... I don't know what the fuck he's doing. He really shouldn't let his press people talk him into that shit.
>>891325
how did you get in
>>892260
>combien d'intel avez-vous maintenat
his story checks out
>>892327
Historians have always had an intuitive grasp of this. That's why true historical texts can feel so bare, almost like reading a ledger.
See: Josephus, Thucydides
>>894120
>distrusts of grand metanarratives
distrust of metanaratives good, existance has no final purpose
ug has said it
>>893896
sure you can
though it wouldn't be very useful, unless other people start using it too
be sure to make it catchy! it's what all the kids in silicon valley are doing these days
>>894135
>rather than a /pol/ suggestion that all post-modern academics are just evil marxists trying to bring down the fall of western civilization
So you have no agenda? That's kinda lame. A closet egoist, huh?
>>893860
m8 you're fucking retarded.
I don't like obscurantism but this
>Marxism is itself cited as a grand meta-narrative in the post-modern field.
isn't fucking rocket science.
>>893860
It sounds to me that you are have already decided that all philosophy is crypto-obscurisism and are not really interesting in having that assumption challenged.
A quick google search could have told you that a meta-narrative is any attempt to take all of human history and say the whole thing is one teleological narrative that explains all events.
Examples
*All human history is humanity moving closer to God
*All human history is a class struggle moving towards communism
*All human history is human reasoning moving towards a greater understanding of "Truth" using empirical science
This guys also summs it well here
>>893130
Post-modernism is defined by the rejection of all grand meta-narrative claims. Teleology is fully abounded and the very notion of progress as a universial (rather than a subjective) reality is discarded.
You'd figure that people /pol/tards that want to challenge proggresivism (which is basically this generations grand meta-narrative) would be jumping up and down in praise of post-modernism: Focaulst, Bauildrillard, and Derrida already gave you guys all the tools to "deconstruct", the "power relationships" of progressiveness, and their plot to redefine "human nature" by controlling "power/knowledge" and setting up "simulcra" to "seduce" those that oppose them...but that would actually requiring reading and knowing what those quoted words mean. These are silver-bullets to destroy any meta-narrative!
>>897049
>A quick google search could have told you that a meta-narrative is any attempt to take all of human history and say the whole thing is one teleological narrative that explains all events.
Well, there is. Human history is moving. We can't say where, but we can say that it is in motion, that it changes, and will be different tomorrow.
Marxism and theology were only wrong in that the predicted an endpoint. There will be no endpoint, short of the physical end to society. Eschatology is the real criminal here.
>>897055
Your whole post reads like gibberish to me. Do you have an argument? Marx and Hegel make better arguments than you do.
>>897058
Could you concisely elaborate that point?
>>897124
Not him. But this post >>897055
doesn't do anything other than say
"No it's doesn't work that way. I really doesn't" It's just an assertion with no backup given
Marx and Hegel go through elborate work to explain why their meta-narrative is a natural teleological path. Annon doesn't offer any explanation, he doesn't even say what the meta-narrative of history IS.
>>897058
I'm saying post-modernism is wrong, flat out, by that definition. Progress is a reality. Where all ideology has been wrong, is by trying to predict what the endpoint would be, or the next big thing. Can't do that. But our reality is going somewhere.
>>897148
He doesn't really have to. All he's saying that history is not static, and unless it is perfectly and evenly ocillatory there will be some net movement in some direction over time.
>>897169
Yes, you get it, thank you.
It's not much, but it's something to work from.
>>897166
Again you are just asserting something without giving any reason. Progress doesn't exist just because you say it does. You need to define your terms man. Ironically you are the one being obscurest here. You aren't telling us anything. What are you saying history is progressing TOWARDS? If there is no goal it is moving towards you simply cannot have a notion of progress.
And I do not even think you understand what post-modernism is about despite that I explained it in the simpliest terms possible.
Do you know what teleology is (and no don't go ranting about how it's an obscurist term, this goes back to the Greeks)?
A post-modernist would say things do change, but there is no objective concept of progress. An objective concept of proggressive requires a teleological foundation.
>>897186
>What are you saying history is progressing TOWARDS?
I'm am saying history is moving towards something. I am also saying we probably cannot know where. It is moving, so it is moving somewhere.
>>896870
Is it because no one understands the pyramids?
reminder that liberals and libertarians choose to impose you their liberal doctrines and if you refuse they charge you in order to put you in their prison
>>897240
Who said this?
>>897049
/pol/ don't want to deconstruct meta-narratives. They want to get rid of what they oppose and have their own white-nationalist-Jewish-consipracy stuff centre stage. Praxis not deconstruction. They have a lot in common with some of our Marxists here.
>>881656
Yuck. Is that from a published novel?
>>900924
Yeah, I'm working on it. Here's more.
Phuc Stevenson was a postman in Mansfield, a suburb of Dallas. Understand now that postman is a joke, a play on “post-man,” implying either that Phuc somehow transcends humanity or that he’s the quintessence of postmodernity. Whatever it means, he definitely has nothing to do with the mail [commentary on privatization of postal service in America and neoconservatism because such commentaries are too unabashedly earnest for someone too young to remember 9/11 to make] or stamps or Thomas Pynchon. Phuc decided last month while snapchatting underage girls dick pics under the alias Dylan (he thought to use Phil because of his name or Fred because of phonetics but those are some pedo as fuck names (I guess 16 isn’t even pedo it’s more ephebo and half of Europe is cool with it (not that non-Euro countries can’t be good examples of reasonable sex policies, not being ethnocentric (no fuck that Thailand has no business being like that (reverse privilege Phuc is Asian (no shit, his name is Phuc) so I can say that (though I (the defictionalized author) am only half so I/he can write/think that))))) that the whole affectation/sincerity thing dominating the arts is stupid since the opposite of affectation would more accurately be isolation, as affectation is inherent to socialization, or perhaps even suicide, as it’s sort of inherent to existence (unless you’re retarded or senile or David Foster Wallace (scratch that last one he killed himself (as you know :^) hehelololkekekeakguaholmjrgimt); I think I’m/he’s on to something)). As problematic (this is only half-ironic because on the one hand fuck university liberals (university being a modifier (the non-tenured variety are fine (privilege check: of course I think that I am one))) but foregoing fitting diction to avoid tumblr liberal (there are so many varieties (latte leftist, limousine liberal and microblog (cultural) Marxist (which is really just tumblr liberal with more Joyce...
>>900936
I think I prefer Jane Austen
>>900936
>Yeah
So it IS a published novel
>I'm working on it
So, not it's not a published novel.
My dad would call it "too cute by a half" it's an old saying people out west said when they caught on that you were being...
>"meta"
I would have guessed Thomas Pynchon and DFW was coming from the first paragraph - you're not Pynchon or DFW.
You have a disdain for the reader (and you KNOW that you have a disdain for the reader (or at least you've been told that before(or seen it on TV))(see how easy this is?) and you probably also think that I think that disdain for the reader is a quality that immediately makes you unfit to be an author (I don't think that (I just think that it's "too cute by a half")))
>>900936
>>900969
Also, I think you need to throw some dank references to Neil Stephenson's Snow Crash in there too. Hiro Protagonist was a half-asian character with a overtly symbolic name too.
I feel like I'm tearing it up in senior year (HS) English class right now (albeit with a disaffected attitude) - not talking about prose I enjoyed reading.
>>900936
Get the fuck out, Kolsti.
>>901074
Kolsti Nguyen is probably the greatest literary mind of the century.
>>901092
No you aren't, you pretentious cock. You deserve a global lifetime ban from this site.
>>901099
You sound jealous.
>post structuralism
the tumble of politics
try to recall into your mind (if you've been lurking for a bit) all that transexual politics comics where the trans character says something about how society forces gender on you and bla bla bla but apply that to every piece of text ever written.
>>883482
So why aren't there any conservative or right wing post structuralists?
>>903035
For the same reason there arn't any liberal left wing post-structulistists. It's not a political way of thinking, it challenges claims of authority and authenticity in all it's forms. This isn't to say there are not such people (I'll mention them at the end) but that's its not the mode of operating for a post structuralist. They are annihilators, not creators.
I'll give you an example. Baudrillard is one of the top post-structuralists ever. For him politics is a joke, it's become a circus and parody of itself. He took the extreme position (and logical outcome of post-structuralism) that any sort of claim about the nature of power relationships is itself a power-relationship. To illustrate this let's take Focaulst's idea that sexuality is fluid, there is no gay or straight, these are social constructs. Well this very idea itself creates a new social construct that it's ok to embrace more extreme forms of sexuality, and this truth for Bauldrillard is no more true or false than the one Foucault is fighting against.
Post-structuralists describe how society IS rather than how it OUGHT to be and because their ideas are so great at destroying ideology political groups love them since they can de-legitimize the status que politics. In the 70s the liberals used Focaulst as a weapon to attack mainstream ideas about sex.
Now that the progressives are in power the New French Right is using post-structuralism to destroy liberal ideas about "progress" and the need to have one big multi-cultural society.
Here is their attack: https://archive.org/details/ManifestoOfTheFrenchNewRightInTheYear2000
It's basically alt-right but intellectual and academic.
>>894135
You're a pretty cool poster you should trip nigga
>>900924
If you think that's from a published novel, then you won't be surprised knowing what /lit/ published over the last three years.
>>903035
It's not quite "conservative" or "right-wing" because it's not political in nature, but take a look at John Milbank and his radical orthodoxy. He uses Post-Structuralism to rip the fuck out of modernity, and finds it's all routed in a system of violence.
>>894192
I do not follow enough to see what separates structuralism and post-structuralism
for instance, with the tweet above form the russian, what would a structuralism tell compared to the post-structuralism ?
>>900936
what made you decide to write such unreadable garbage?
>>892493
I talk about this stuff with my friends and gf a fair bit. For example I say "and by modernity I mean blah blah" so we don't get confused
>>900936
You're very clever ironically tho lol
