What is Post Structuralism?

Post-Structuralism and Deconstruction Theory

Think that you're reading a book or text, and you come across a sentence. Now, most people think that the words in that sentence have one clear and fixed meaning, right? Well, post-structuralism says, "No!"

In the 1960s and 1970s, some smart people in France started saying that words and meanings are not fixed. They believed that words could mean different things to different people and that the way we understand things is influenced by the time, place, and society we live in.

So, when we talk about post-structuralism in literary theory, it's like viewing texts and stories from a fresh and new perspective. Instead of just saying, "This text means this, and that's it," post-structuralism asks, "How do different readers understand this text differently? How does society shape the way we understand it?"

Post-structuralism is saying that there's no one "truth" in a story. Instead, there are lots of different ways to see and understand it, and those ways change depending on who you are and the world around you. Post-structuralism shakes up the idea that there's a single, fixed meaning in literature and shows us that it's a lot more flexible and complex than we might have thought.

Post-structuralism is a theory that challenges traditional ideas about how language and meaning work. Instead of believing that words have fixed and objective meanings, post-structuralists argue that language is always changing and is shaped by power dynamics and cultural influences".

They emphasize that there is no one "correct" interpretation of a text or idea, but rather multiple interpretations influenced by our individual perspectives and the context in which we encounter them. In simpler terms, post-structuralism says that words are flexible, and meaning is not fixed but varies depending on who is using the words and in what context.

Post-Structuralism Theory:

Structuralists thought that language and culture were proper and well-organized systems created by humans. But post-structuralists disagreed. They said that these systems are messy and not so predictable. Why? Because they're shaped by all sorts of things, like our personal biases, the time we live in, and the people around us.

Post-structuralists questioned the idea of 'truth.' They said, "Capturing the truth is like chasing a slippery fish." Why? They believed that the connection between words (the signifiers) and what they actually mean (the signified) wasn't as fixed as structuralists thought.

You know how a word can mean one thing to you and something completely different to someone else? Well, post-structuralists said, "That's because words are influenced by lots of factors, and they can change depending on who's using them and when."

So, post-structuralism challenges the idea that there's a clear and unchanging 'truth' because language and culture are way more messy and changeable than we might have thought. It's like saying that 'truth' is like a moving target that's really hard to pin down.

Think about the word Cat and guess the words

Example:

Think about the word "cat. For Person A, this word might bring up thoughts of a fluffy, adorable little animal that makes biscuits with its paws and has cute pointy ears and whiskers. It's like a warm and friendly image.

Now, for Person B, when they hear "cat," they might think of a completely different picture. To them, it might be this pesky, furry creature that gives them allergies, scratches with sharp claws, and has these mean-looking eyes. It's like a not-so-friendly image.

Why do Person A and Person B see "cats" so differently? It's because they each have their own personal experiences and feelings about cats. Person A probably had positive encounters with cats, while Person B might have had some not-so-great experiences.

What this shows is that words like "cat" don't have just one fixed meaning. They can mean different things to different people based on their unique experiences and feelings. This is a big part of what post-structuralism talks about how our individual experiences shape the way we understand words and concepts. It's like saying that words are like colorful paints, and we all use them to create our own pictures in our minds.

Major Contributors and Concepts

1: Roland Barthes (1915–80):

Roland Barthes was all about exploring how language and symbols work in literature. He believed that words and symbols don't have a fixed meaning. Instead, they can have lots of different meanings depending on who's reading them and in what context.

Death of the Author:

Think that you're reading a book, and you've always thought that the author has the ultimate say in what the book means. Well, Roland Barthes came along and said, "Absolutely not!"

In his essay 'The Death of the Author,' he argued that the author's intentions and ideas aren't the only things that matter when we're trying to understand a book. He believed that readers played a big role too. Barthes said that once a book is out there in the world, it takes on a life of its own. Readers bring their own experiences, thoughts, and feelings to the story, and this influences how they interpret it. He argued that:

It's not easy to guess the exact meaning of the author's interpretation. It's like trying to guess what someone was thinking when they wrote a book—we can't know for sure.
Once a book is out there or published, the author can't control how people will understand it.

So, according to Barthes, it's not just the author who gets to decide what a book means. It's a collaboration between the author and the readers. He basically said, "Let's not put all the power in the author's hands. The meaning of a book is shaped by everyone who reads it." This idea changed the way people think about literature, making it more of a shared experience.

2-Jacques Derrida (1930–2004)

Jacques Derrida made significant contributions to post-structuralist theory through his ideas about language, meaning, and interpretation. These are the key aspects of his contributions to the post-structuralism theory.

Deconstruction: Derrida is perhaps most famous for his concept of "deconstruction. He argued that in any text, there are hidden contradictions and complexities that challenge the traditional, fixed meanings of words and ideas. Deconstruction involves examining these contradictions to show that language is inherently unstable and that no text has a single, absolute meaning.

Deconstruction concept

Example:

This is a simple sentence' She sees the man with telescope'.
Deconstruction concepts allow the readers to break the sentence into multiple elements. Now, a deconstructionist like Derrida would start questioning the meanings and assumptions within this sentence. They might ask:
What does "she" refer to? Who is this person?
Who is "the man" that she sees, and what is their relationship?
What does "with the telescope" mean? Does it mean the man has the telescope, or is he being observed through a telescope?
By breaking down the sentence and examining the multiple possible interpretations and ambiguities, Derrida's deconstruction theory shows that language is not fixed and that there are layers of meaning and assumptions in even the simplest of sentences.

Differance: "differance," which combines "difference" and "deference introduced by Derrida. He suggested that meaning arises not from clear and stable definitions but from the differences between words and ideas. He emphasized that words gain their meaning by referring to other words, creating a web of interconnected meanings.

Binary Oppositions: Derrida questioned the traditional way of thinking through binary oppositions, such as good vs. evil, male vs. female, and so on. He argued that these oppositions are not absolute but interconnected and often dependent on each other. He showed that breaking down these oppositions can reveal hidden complexities in language and thought.

Play of Language: Derrida believed that language is like a game, where words and ideas play with and against each other. He saw this linguistic play as a fundamental aspect of how meaning is created and understood.

Scholars Criticism

Post-structuralism gained popularity in his era, but several scholars criticized him for some reasons, such as:

1: Noam Chomsky:

Chomsky thinks there are basic rules that everyone's brain follows when we talk and understand each other. He calls these rules "universal grammar. It's like the hidden structure that makes language work.

Now, post-structuralists, on the other hand, focus on the idea that language can be tricky and full of different meanings. They like to explore how words can be flexible and how they can mean different things to different people.

Chomsky's critique is that post-structuralism spends too much time on the flexibility of language and not enough on these basic rules (universal grammar). He worries that we might forget the important rules that help us communicate if we only focus on how words can be slippery and mean different things. So Noam Chomsky is saying, "Hey, let's not forget the grammar rules that make language work."

2-Silavoj Zizek:

Slavoj Žižek, a prominent philosopher and cultural critic, indeed offers a unique criticism of post-structuralism such as:

1-Overemphasis on Language: Žižek criticizes post-structuralism for being too focused on language and textuality. He argues that post-structuralism often gets bogged down in analyzing words and symbols, leading to a kind of intellectual "paralysis" where theorists endlessly deconstruct language but do not take concrete actions in the real world.

2-Lack of Action: He suggests that post-structuralism, by emphasizing the ambiguity of language and the multiplicity of meanings, can inadvertently discourage meaningful social and political engagement. Žižek believes that this preoccupation with theory may lead to a disconnect between intellectual discourse and practical activism.

3-Ideological Disguise: Žižek contends that post-structuralism sometimes serves as a convenient ideological tool for those in power. He argues that by focusing on linguistic and cultural issues, post-structuralism can divert attention away from pressing economic and political concerns, effectively maintaining the status quo.

4-Balancing Theory and Action: Žižek emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between critical thinking and practical engagement. He suggests that while theory is essential for understanding the world, it should not replace concrete efforts to bring about social change and justice.

3-Martha Nussbaum:

Nussbaum worried that this way of thinking might make it hard to have a clear sense of what's morally right or wrong. If everyone's opinion is equally valid, then how can we say that something is genuinely good or bad?

She argued that this lack of a moral compass could make it tricky to address important societal issues like fairness, justice, and equality. It's like trying to navigate a ship without a map or a compass.

Nussbaum's critique is that post-structuralism's focus on everything being relative could lead to a lack of clear moral and ethical guidance, which might make it harder to solve real-world problems.

Theory of Post-Structuralism || Theory of deconstruction

What is Post Structuralism?