Post-Structuralism

Introduction:
In the late twentieth century, poststructuralism set the terms and the agenda for many of the major
developments and debates in the field of theory and criticism. It played, and continues to play, a
significant role in shaping the direction of other schools and movements, particularly feminist
criticism,postcolonial theory, cultural studies etc.
Origin:
Originally,A vanguard movement of French literary intellectuals and philosophers who came into
prominence during the 1960s and 1970s and who were critical of yet indebted to structuralism, it
quickly spread to intellectuals around the globe. By the end of the twentieth century, poststructuralism
had become the leading edge of postmodernism and was often labelled “postmodern theory.”
Main features of post-structuralism.The main features of poststructuralism include the
problematizing(to sought solution) of linguistic referentiality, an emphasis on heteroglossia, the
decentering of the subject, the rejection of “reason” as universal or foundational, the criticism of
humanism, a stress on difference over sameness, and the theory of the social text.

Jaques Derrida and Deconstruction

Derrida’s early work shed light on the limitations and contradictions that are represented by the written
word: our inability to control or limit the meaning that might be given to our words because of the
historical development of language, the ambiguity of linguistic meaning, and the ability of written text to
be excerpted, reproduced and read in contexts we can neither imagine nor control (as opposed,
supposedly, to the immediate and limited context of the spoken word). This is why any text can be
deconstructed (even Friedrich Nietzsche’s fragmentary message “I have forgotten my umbrella” in
Spurs), but canonical texts (Plato, Kant, Hegel, later Heidegger himself) offer the richest and most
productive grounds for deconstruction.

Deconstructive Theory
Deconstruction is about the idea that language and meaning are often inadequate in trying to convey
the message so one should break down or deconstruct the language to see if we can better understand
where the confusion stems.
Key features which emerge from Derrida’s work as follow:
Differance:
Derrida says people often think speaking is better than writing because it seems more direct - like the
words in someone's head go straight to their mouth. But he thinks this idea is wrong. He says words
don't have fixed meanings that match exactly with what someone thinks. This idea isn't new. Saussure
said the same thing before. Saussure said words only have meaning because they're different from other
words. Derrida agrees.
Trace:
Derrida argues that language leaves behind traces of meaning that can never be fully grasped.
Derrida said that Trace itself doesn’t exit but it is also not completely absent. For example, when we use
a word like "breezy sunset," it portrays sun as beautiful but for some people it may be a symbol of hope
or ending of life. These traces show that meanings are not always clear or fixed; they're kind of fuzzy and
open to different interpretations.
Logocentricism
Derrida's key concept in "Of Grammatology" is "logocentricism," which refers to the belief in a central,
stable meaning or truth. Logocentrism maintains that language originates as a process of thought which
produces speech, and that speech then produces writing.
Derrida explains that, according to logocentrist theory, speech may be a kind of presence, because the
speaker is simultaneously present for the listener, but writing may be a kind of absence, because the
writer is not simultaneously present for the reader. Logocentrism thus asserts that writing is a
substitute for speech and that writing is an attempt to restore the presence of speech. Some
poststructuralist accounts of literature derive from deconstructive theory, especially its three
interconnected concepts of textuality (or floating signifiers), rhetoricity, and intertextuality. Because
the signifier (word) is disconnected from the signified (concept) and the referent (thing), language floats
or slides in relation to reality, a condition made more severe with the additional sliding introduced by
figurative language, such as metaphors and metonymies. Such rhetoricity adds layers of substitutions
and supplements (more differences) to floating signifiers. Textuality and rhetoricity are conditioned by a
third sliding or differential element, intertextuality—a text’s dependence on prior words, concepts,
connotations, codes, conventions,unconscious practices, and texts. Every text is an intertext that
borrows, knowingly or not, from the immense archive of previous culture.
The linguistic, rhetorical, and intertextual properties of language undermine or deconstruct stable
meaning. This “undecidability,” a hallmark of Jacques Derrida’s and Paul de Man’s deconstruction,
galvanizes opponents— particularly when joined to the related poststructuralist claim of the “death of
the author” which disconnects the text from any sure grounding in authorial intention or psychology.
Deconstructive conceptions of reading as both misreading and misprision, discussed earlier, do not
signal an end to textual interpretation but change its grounds. The redoubled reading typical of much
deconstruction often rests on claims of interest and insight, not of validity or truth.
Deconstruction originated in the name of a special difference (or différance), stemming from both
structural linguistics and phenomenological philosophy. It denotes the structure of differences that
defines both the sliding (differential) operation of the signifier-signified complex and, more abstractly,
the existence of entities that are already differentiated and divided because they necessarily exist in
space and in time.There is no more multifaceted term in contemporary poststructuralist theory than
difference. Deconstruction is not just a school and branch of poststructuralism but also an analytic
procedure developed by Derrida, a historian of philosophy, that quickly became a methodological
instrument widely used by literary and cultural theorists and critics.
Thus Derrida famously deconstructed the speech/writing opposition by showing how writing precedes
speech; characteristically, he reinscribes the concept of writing (écriture in French) to mean any and all
forms of inscription in any medium. Poststructuralism provided still another justification for
postmodernism’s emphasis on the free play of language, of the text-as-generating meaning. The later
Barthes (as in The Pleasure of the Text, 1973) suggested that only in writing (or in reading-as-writing)
could the individual be freed momentarily from the tyranny of structural meaning, from ideology,
from theory. Deconstruction and poststructuralism, as developed by Derrida, Paul de Man, Barthes,
and others, was essentially an attempt to topple the logic by which a particular system of thought (and
behind that, a whole system of political structures and social institutions) maintains its force. By
demonstrating that all meaning and knowledge could be exposed as resting on a naively
representational theory of language.

Concept Of Center in Post-Structuralism

Post-Structuralism, emerged in the late 1960s as a critique of Structuralism’s emphasis on stability and
universality of meaning. Post-Structuralists, such as Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, argued that
meaning is not fixed but is constantly being reconfigured and reinterpreted in new and different ways.
This idea is most famously expressed in Derrida’s deconstruction theory, which critiques the idea of a
fixed, stable meaning and argues that all texts contain inherent contradictions and
ambiguities.Traditionally, Western thought often relies on a "center" as the foundation for
various aspects of knowledge and existence. This center can be:
Meaning: The core, true definition of something, like a dictionary definition for a word.
Fixed Meaning: Imagine a dictionary definition as the "center" - the fixed and unchanging meaning of a
word. Derrida argues this is an illusion. Meaning isn't static but constantly "deferred" through
connections with other words. "Cat" might refer to a feline pet, but it can also evoke curiosity, agility,
or even negativity ("catty")
Center:

2 . Authority:
The source of power and legitimacy, like a king in a monarchy. Post-Structuralists argue that literary
works are not isolated entities but are constantly engaging with and being shaped by different cultural
texts.This means that the meaning of a literary work is not determined by the text itself but instead is
produced through its relationship with other cultural texts.Traditionally, the center might be the author
in a text, holding ultimate authority over meaning. Derrida challenges this. The author doesn't solely
dictate meaning. Readers bring their own interpretations based on their experiences and the broader
context, creating a more fluid understanding.
3 . Stability:
The unchanging core that provides a sense of order and grounding. Foundation for Order: The center
could also represent the foundation of knowledge systems like science or religion.Michel Foucault, for
example, argues that knowledge is not neutral but instead is shaped by power relationships and social
structures. He argues that the author’s intentions do not determine a text’s meaning but are shaped by
the social, cultural, and historical context in which it was produced.
Concept Of Binary Opposite
In structuralism, binary opposites were foundational. Think of them as building blocks that creates
meaning. These are pairs of contrasting terms that define each other, like good/evil, light/dark, or
male/female. Structuralists like Ferdinand de Saussure and Claude Lévi-Strauss believed these opposites
provided a kind of underlying structure for how we understand language, culture, and even thought
itself. However, post-structuralism throws a wrench into this idea. Here's how:

Post-Structuralist Critique:
Post-structuralist idea of binary opposition inculcates: “To invert hierarchies in order to gain new
insights into language and life.”

Unequal Power: Post-structuralists, like Jacques Derrida, argue that these binaries aren't always equal.
Often, one term is privileged over the other. Take masculine/feminine for example. In traditional
structures, masculine qualities like reason and strength are often valued more than feminine ones like
emotion and nurturing. This creates a hierarchy that can disadvantage one side.
Blurry Boundaries: The world isn't always so black and white. What about someone who is both
strong and nurturing? Do they fit neatly into either category of the binary? Post-structuralists argue that
real people and experiences often defy these rigid
classifications.
Questioning Dependence: Is the meaning of one term only dependent on its opposite? For instance,
is "masculine" only meaningful because it contrasts with "feminine"? Could there be other ways to
understand masculinity that don't rely on its binary opposite? In structuralism, binary opposites were
foundational. Think of them as building blocks that create meaning. These are pairs of contrasting terms
that define each other, like good/evil, light/dark, or male/female. Structuralists like Ferdinand de
Saussure and Claude Lévi-Strauss believed these opposites provided a kind of underlying structure for
how we understand language, culture, and even thought itself. However, post-structuralism throws a
wrench into this idea. Here's how:
Binary Opposites :
In post-structuralist thought, binary opposition is deconstructed . Scholars like Jacques Derrida and
Michel Foucault argue that such oppositions are not fixed and natural but are socially constructed and
subject to change. Post-structuralism questions the stability and hierarchy implied by binary oppositions.
It argues that these oppositions are not fixed and that they often conceal complexities and power
dynamics. Post-structuralists don't entirely reject binary oppositions. They acknowledge their existence,
but they challenge the idea that these binaries are fixed and all-encompassing. By questioning these
structures, post-structuralism allows us to explore more nuanced and potentially more fluid ways of
understanding the world. Let’s take To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (Binary Opposed:
Innocence/Experience)
Structuralist View: Scout Finch, the young narrator, represents childhood innocence grappling with
the harsh realities of adult experience (racism, prejudice).
Post-Structuralist Critique: The novel blurs the lines. Scout, though innocent in age, demonstrates
surprising maturity in her observations. Similarly, Boo Radley, initially seen as a monster, turns out to be
kind and protective. The clear-cut innocence/experience binary is challenged.

Idea of Bricolage in post-structuralism :

Bricolage, a concept borrowed from anthropology, finds new life in post-structuralism. It
refers to the act of creating something new by using whatever materials are readily
available.
From the Toolbox to the Junk Drawer: The concept originates with anthropologist Claude Levi-
Strauss, who used it in "The Savage Mind" (1962) to describe myth-making. A bricoleur, unlike a
professional with a specialized toolkit, is a resourceful handyman who makes do with whatever
materials are on hand – a hodgepodge of leftover bits and pieces. Their ingenuity lies in
creatively using these scraps to solve problems or create something new.
Poststructuralist Twist: Deconstructing Universality Poststructuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida saw
a parallel between the bricoleur and howwe construct meaning. They argue that we don't have a
universal set of perfect tools (concepts) to understand the world. Instead, we rely on a messy collection
of cultural fragments, ideas, and historical leftovers – our own version of the bricoleur's toolbox.
Key Ideas of Bricolage:
Contingent Meaning: Meaning isn't fixed or predetermined. It's constantly in flux depending on how
we combine these cultural fragments. Imagine the bricoleur – the meaning of their creation depends on
the specific combination of materials used.
Deconstructing the Engineer: Derrida uses the contrast between a bricoleur and an engineer. The
engineer works with a set plan and needs the perfect tools. The bricoleur, on the other hand, embraces
improvisation and makes do with what's available. This aligns with poststructuralist ideas of
deconstruction, which challenges grand narratives and stable structures of knowledge. There's no single
"correct" way to understand the world. This concept finds application in various areas of
poststructuralist thought:
Cultural Studies: How cultures borrow, adapt, and rework elements from each other. Imagine different
cultures as bricoleurs, creating unique cultural expressions by creatively using borrowed fragments.
Literature: Authors create new texts by drawing on and manipulating existing literary forms and ideas,
just like a bricoleur with their materials.
Identity: We construct our identities by drawing on various cultural fragments, similar to the bricoleur's
creative use of available materials.
Bricolage in poststructuralism highlights the creative, but also uncertain, nature of meaning-making.
We don't have a predefined structure for understanding the world; instead, we cobble together
meaning from the cultural scraps around us, constantly improving and adapting.

ROLAND BARTHES (1915-1980)

(A Prominent Post-Structuralist) Roland Barthes was a French intellectual most famous for his work in
literary theory.

- His areas of interest were broad, but centered on specific issues in semiology (the study of signs)
and related to structuralism
- Roland Barthes is also a prominent post-structuralist theorists who have been instrumental in
bringing post-structuralist theory to literary analysis.

ROLAND BARTHES SEMIOTICS

Semiotics: The study of how literary forms and conventions affect the meaning of language When
Barthes and other semiologists use the word ‘signs’ they mean any indicator of meaning. That could be
a traffic light (red means stop etc), a word on a page, or something like a status symbol (a cool car, for
example, which may convey a social meaning for the owner: i'm rich, i'm cool, i'm fast etc).So signs can
be visual, linguistic, or take other forms, such as clothing, mannerisms etc. A sign's meaning can depend
on the context in which it is found. For Barthes, there are two types of sign, and therefore two types of
'sign system': the denotative sign system and the connotative sign system. A denotative sign is a direct
reference to the 'signified' (this is the thing the sign refers to). Denotation is descriptive. For example,
the word 'hat' describes an item you put on your head. A connotative sign is an indirect sign. A hat can
connote authority in some situations. It is no longer just an item of clothing, but a symbol of power or
some other role. For example, a policeman's hat or a head chef's tall white toque.

ROLAND BATHES' DEATH OF THE AUTHOR THEORY

Who has the final say over what something in a novel means? A structuralist thinker may reply that it's
the author as they were the mastermind behind it. Roland Barthes' essay 'The Death Of The Author'
(1967) famously challenged this perspective by arguing:

1. It's impossible for anyone to know the author's exact intentions at the time of writing.
2. The author no longer has control over how their text will be interpreted once it is made public.

According to Barthes, we should approach literary analysis as if the author is dead: We know that to
give writing its future, it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost
of the death of the author.
 He disagreed with classical theorists' tendency to put authors' feelings, opinions, and intentions on a
pedestal when analysing literature. Barthes saw this as an old-fashioned and limiting approach that
ignored the countless ways a text could be interpreted by its readers. Barthes questioned the centrality
and authority of the author, arguing that the author should be viewed as a grammatical subject rather
than a psychological one. Thus, Barthes deconstructs the centrality and the dependability of the
author, undermining the liberal humanist tendency that since renaissance had celebrated authorship.

Conclusion :
Poststructuralism dismantles the idea of a single, fixed meaning. It rejects rigid categories like good/evil
and argues the world is more complex.
Bricolage, the art of making do with what's available, becomes a metaphor for how we construct
meaning – a constant work in progress drawing on
cultural fragments. In this ever-shifting landscape, meaning emerges from our active interpretations, not
from a predefined center.
Contribution
Certain branches and strands of poststructuralism focus on desire, the body, and subjectivity rather than
on textuality, rhetoricity, and deconstruction.

CRITICAL OVERVIEW OF POSTSTRUCTURALISM (DECON.)

Post-structuralist approaches to literature have been hugely influential. H owever, they have also been
the subject of lots of critiques.
Firstly, post-structuralism could be critiqued for putting too little focus on the author. It could be
argued that by neglecting the author's life and beliefs entirely, we are also taking away the author's
responsibility for anything they wrote. Secondly,Deconstructive reading often focuses on seemingly
incidental details, like a specific metaphor, and uses it as a key to understanding the entire text. Unlike
structuralists who look for parallels and echoes to show unity, deconstructionists aim to reveal thatthe
text is at war with itself, characterized by gaps, breaks, fissures, and
discontinuities. This approach challenges the idea of a unified and harmonious text, emphasizing
internal conflicts and disunity within the literary work.At the same time, deconstruction, by
foregrounding the fact that “Everything we thought of as spirit, or meaning separable from the letter
of the text, remains within an ‘intertextual’ sphere” , opened important channels of communication
between philosophy and literary studies.

Criticism
All forms of discourse in their tendency to view all elements of reality, including social reality, as merely
further texts to be deconstructed as being undecidable, there emerges the sense that one has found a
means to demolish all opinions without having to adopt any of one’s own. Perhaps the key factor that
needs to be emphasized in this regard is that, as Derrida and Barthes, among others, have
demonstrated, there is no fundamental opposition between a fiction that emphasizes its unnaturalness,
its arbitrariness, that reveals (and revels in) its differances, and one that deals with history, politics, and
social issues in a significant fashion. Indeed, by opening up a radical awareness of the sign systems by
which men and women live, and by offering examples of freely created fictions that oppose publicly
accepted ones, postmodern fiction contains the potential to rejoin the history which some claim it has
abandoned. To its opponents, the deconstructive strands of poststructuralism concerned with the
rhetoricity and undecidability of literary texts seem narrowly focused, conservative, formalistic, and
apolitical. Eagleton notes, one product of this emphasis on the unnaturalness of signs was admittedly
the tendency by some poststructuralists (and some fiction writers) to flee from history, to take refuge in
the erotic play of writing/reading, and conveniently to evade reality and all political questions
completely: If meaning, the signified, was a passing product of words or signifiers, always shifting and
unstable, part-present and part-absent, how could there be any determinate truth or meaning at all? If
reality was constructed by our discourse rather than reflected by it, how could we ever know reality
itself, rather than merely knowing our own discourse? Was all talk just talk about talk? Did it make sense
to claim that one interpretation of reality, history or the literary text was ‘‘better’’ than another?

Deconstructive analysis of “The Story of an Hour”

In "The Story of an Hour," Kate Chopin explores binary oppositions such as freedom vs. confinement, life
vs. death, and independence vs. dependence. Through deconstructionist analysis, these binaries can be
seen as fluid and interconnected rather than fixed, highlighting the complexity of human experience and
challenging traditional interpretations. For instance, Louise Mallard's initial reaction to her husband's
supposed death as a moment of freedom can be deconstructed to reveal underlying complexities, such
as societal expectations and internalized norms.

Logocentrism and phallogocentrism

Logocentrism and phallogocentrism refer to the privileging of masculine perspectives and structures in
literature and language. In "The Story of an Hour," one could argue that Mrs. Mallard's initial reaction to
her husband's death challenges traditional logocentric and phallogocentric views by suggesting that
freedom and self-assertion are possible outside of the patriarchal framework. However, her subsequent
death upon realizing her husband is alive could be seen as a reinforcement of the dominance of the
male figure and patriarchal order, thus illustrating the limits of liberation within a phallogocentric
society.