In reading Barry's well ordered comparison of structuralism and poststructuralism I better understood structuralism's concerns about language, which supported some of the claims in my previous post about which I was a little uncertain. Structuralism believes in the inherently ordered nature of language. "After all, language is an ordered system, not a chaotic one, so realizing our dependence on it need not induce intellectual despair" (64). Therefore, structuralism (albeit most specifically the thoughts of Saussure) insists that "we are not in control" and that the chaos of thought is, indeed, reigned-in by language.
Structuralism believes words can only be defined by their opposites, and while poststructuralism admits this same notion of binary opposition within language, it takes more issue with this (structuralism makes this assertion without anxiety, as noted above). That is, poststructuralism takes structuralism's notion further, by stating more emphatically that words are not only defined by their opposites, but that they are "always contaminated by their opposites" (64); therefore, meaning can never be pure or pinned down.
This seems to be a major point of departure between the two camps--where the "post" becomes necessarily attached to the "structuralism." This is because, as Barry states, structuralism still believes in the possibility of knowledge, even though the word or sign is arbitrary (because the system of language is orderly and therefore stable); but poststructuralism (as is appropriate due to its roots in skeptical philosophy rather than scientific linguistics) doubts the accessibility of any knowledge because it doubts the stability of the system.
Enter decentering. Enter Derrida.
Structuralism believes words can only be defined by their opposites, and while poststructuralism admits this same notion of binary opposition within language, it takes more issue with this (structuralism makes this assertion without anxiety, as noted above). That is, poststructuralism takes structuralism's notion further, by stating more emphatically that words are not only defined by their opposites, but that they are "always contaminated by their opposites" (64); therefore, meaning can never be pure or pinned down.
This seems to be a major point of departure between the two camps--where the "post" becomes necessarily attached to the "structuralism." This is because, as Barry states, structuralism still believes in the possibility of knowledge, even though the word or sign is arbitrary (because the system of language is orderly and therefore stable); but poststructuralism (as is appropriate due to its roots in skeptical philosophy rather than scientific linguistics) doubts the accessibility of any knowledge because it doubts the stability of the system.
Enter decentering. Enter Derrida.
No comments:
Post a Comment