Intro to Post-Structuralism, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault & Jacques Derrida
To view related topics Click Here.
Introduction to Post-Structuralism
Poststructuralism, a concept rarely defined and widely discussed, has complicated and problematized our understanding of the world that it has become impossible to define it. Some say it was a continuation of structuralism; some believe it was a reaction against structuralism.
On the contrary, to both believe, one finds it to be true to both views and none at the same time. Poststructuralism comes out structuralism as a reactionary movement against structuralism. Structuralism reaches the meaning of the text through linguistic analysis to show that there is a common and central meaning to all the cultures.
Poststructuralists also find the meaning of the text through its linguistic analysis (every critic analyses the language of the literary text, but when the word linguistic analysis is used it is to suggest the form or pattern of the text and language) to claim that there is no common or central meaning.
Poststructuralism denies the centrality of meaning by arguing that the meaning of a particular sign may differ from culture to culture; therefore, there cannot be a universal meaning. For instance, ‘apple’ may mean a fruit to some people and phone, also, to some people; the colour white may also connote mourning in some cultures and happiness in others.
So, universal truth or meaning has no space in poststructuralist discourse because language in itself is a product of the culture which ascribes meaning to the signs.
Structuralists argued that the meaning of the text is separable from culture and poststructuralists argue against this view. Structuralists’, like Levi Strauss, orthodox belief in ‘logocentricism’ was rejected by poststructuralists like Jacques Derrida.
The idea that a literary text has a single meaning or purpose was dumped by poststructuralists. They believe, rather, every individual creates his/her own meaning of the text; hence, a text has multiple meanings. For them, the meaning finds attention in its reader’s reception of it than what the author intends.
Poststructuralism and structuralism both deny the agency of the author in the text. They believe that the moment the text comes in the reader’s hand, its author dies, and the reader as its sole agent takes birth.
Roland Barthe, a structuralist and later turned poststructuralist, in his essay, “The Death of the Author,” argues for the replacement of the author by the reader as the primary subject of inquiry. This process is called ‘destabilizing’ or ‘decentering’ of the author. Without any concentration on the author poststructuralists examine the sources for meaning e.g. readers, cultural norms, other texts, etc.
Roland Barthes as Post-Structuralist
From the beginning, Barthes has been critical of the view that bourgeoisie ideology holds that language is natural and transparent. In his structuralism he accentuates on the same point; however, his turn from a structuralist theorist to poststructuralist takes place with his belief that structuralism is not the end but can be further explained in a way that may lead to contradictory positions.
Similar to an already famous statement that is attributed to Nietzsche, “The God is Dead,” Barthes brings his concept of the author not being the origin of the text in his famous essay: “The Death of the Author,” which also marks the beginning of his poststructuralist phase.
Talking about his claim that author has no relation with the text once it has been written and that the text is independent and has autonomy, it seems that Barthes is reclaiming the position maintained by New Critics that the text must be analyzed by not considering author’s intention but the structure of the text.
It might seem so and, yes, up to an extent Barthes is arguing that but it is the understanding of the author where the misunderstanding begins for Barthes’ treatment of the author is entirely different than that of New Critics.
While New Critics completely remove the space of the author from their humanistic viewpoint about the reading of the text, Barthes maintains the place for the author by making him/her a junction where language meets, crosses, transmits, converts, etc.
That is also to say, in other words, that the author is treated as being a medium, to commit the mistake of simplifying it, which translates/transforms the, let’s say, culture into the text through language.
After this the author is dead and, therefore, the reader becomes the sole owner of the text, having access to interpret the text as he/she wishes. The author becomes a free agent who is independent to treat and, also, alter the process of the signification of signifier and signified.
The working of the process between signifier and signified found structuralism get further bereft of signified as the reader has the option of connecting the signifier to his own signified once the author’s intentions are removed from the analysis.
Michel Foucault
The word ‘discourse’ becomes a significant part of the theoretical and academic discourse with Michel Foucault. Foucault explains how discourse is guided by the people in power: ruling elite or state and that through discourse the power is exercised by them.
It is a discourse that constructs the reality, that we see or believe to be real, maintains the slave-owner relationship between state and people, and constructs and enslaves our consciousness.
Generally, it so happens in society that various thought or theories are not accepted in the society at a particular point of time for their being, let’s say, anti-dominant discourse; for instance, the theory that the Sun is the center of our solar system couldn’t be accepted in medieval times for it being against Christianity which held power and constructed discourse during those time.
It is in this sense that Foucault is interested in history to explore how discourse changes throughout the history which he calls discursive change.
Though Foucault always rejected the labels which have been associated with him, he is often considered structuralist, poststructuralist, postmodernist, new historicist, etc.
Associating him to any one of the above school of thoughts would be a mistake as his works revolve around almost all existing, not school of thoughts, but discipline. Our concern, however, is to see him as a poststructuralist because, as matter of fact, his theories contribute to the field of poststructuralism.
Structuralism tries to break the idea of having universal truth but ends up creating its own universal claims. Poststructuralist theorist, like Foucault, argues against those theories. Truth, in its fundamental sense, is criticized by Foucault to not have any universal authenticity.
He argues that every truth is the construction of discourse, that changes from time to time and, hence, the truth must not be understood from the view of essentialism. It is generally understood that knowledge is free and is beyond anybody’s control.
Also, that knowledge is accessible to everyone and that knowledge belongs to individuals’ domain. Foucault critiques it saying that knowledge is also control by the one that reigns over the country, institution or discipline.
Hence, knowledge has its own political dimensions; therefore, Foucault states: “Knowledge is Power,’ meaning that the one that possesses knowledge has power over the ones who don’t have it; for example, reservation of the biblical knowledge for the Church in medieval era helped Christianity to control over its followers.
Jacques Derrida
In structuralism one sees commentaries on the structure from various seminal theorists trying to unveil what lies in, behind and around the structure, but Derrida deconstructs the fundamental assumption that these theorists make to unravel the unknown and his methodology would later become a significant critical theory called ‘deconstruction,’ that has influenced disciplines all around.
In 1966, at John Hopkins University, USA, Jacques Derrida stood up to read his paper, entitled: “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences.”
In this paper, Derrida argues when one attempts to analyze a structure, a universal ‘center’ is assumed which guides that structure, but that center is not analyzed and in order to analyze that center, another center would need to be assumed; hence, as it is believed in ‘logocentricism,’ a universal center doesn’t exist.
Logocentricism doesn’t only assume a center but also, as Derrida argues, prefers speech over writing and this act is called ‘phonocentrism.’ Derrida is also critical of phonocentrism and to prove its shortcomings he draws our attention to a concept that expose the ambiguity of ‘sign.’
He shows us that through a French word, ‘différance’: it only in written text that we realize ‘a’ that differs this word from difference for one cannot hear the ‘a’ in speech.
In other words, the two different meaning of the words can only be understood in writing; otherwise ‘différance’ which mans to defer would also mean differ in speech. This ignoring of the ‘différance’ is done due to ‘phonocentrism’, Derrida argues.
Another term introduced to us by Derrida is ‘violent hierarchy,’ which means the hierarchizing of ‘speech’ over ‘writing.’ The reasons given for this stand are: speech is original, that is to say, speech is closer to the origin than writing; speech has idea of ‘presence’ associated with it while writing can be done without it; speech disappears in the air but writing remains available for interpretation and reinterpretation which is also done writing.
Again, this hierarchy is also not permanent or absolute for, as Derrida believes, it can also be undone by ‘deconstruction.’
The speech-writing binary can also be extended to that of philosophy and literature. Philosophers have mostly considered literature a mere piece of fiction coupled with various figure of speeches such as rhetoric and others; however, philosophy is also written using various figure of speeches and it also contains philosophical elements.
At this point, one learns how can these binary can be deconstructed but Derrida wants us not to end up creating another binary such as, let’s say: turning speech-writing to writing –speech or philosophy-literature to literature-philosophy.
