POST-STRUCTURALISM

What is Post-Structuralism?

Post-Structuralism is a way of thinking that emerged in the 1960s, challenging the idea that texts
have fixed meanings. It arose as a response to Structuralism, which tried to find stable meanings
in systems and texts.

Key assumptions

2. Shift from Author to Reader

In Post-Structuralism, the focus moves from what the author meant to how the reader interprets
the text. Different readers, with their unique backgrounds and experiences, can have different
interpretations of the same text.

3. Multiple Interpretations and No "Correct" Meaning

Post-Structuralists believe there’s no single "correct" interpretation of a text. Meaning changes

depending on the reader, and there are many possible ways to understand a text.

4. The Concept of Self

Post-Structuralism challenges the idea of a stable, unified self. People have multiple, often
conflicting identities (like gender, class, profession), which influence how they interpret texts
and the world around them.

5. Key Thinkers in Post-Structuralism

Important thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes argued that texts
have multiple meanings. They emphasized that texts should be understood from many different
perspectives, not just the author’s intent.

Introduction to Post-Structuralism

Post-Structuralism is a perspective that challenges the traditional understanding of "truth" and

"knowledge." Instead of accepting what is commonly believed or considered factual, it questions
how these concepts are formed and how they are often shaped by power dynamics. Post-
Structuralism encourages examining the forces behind accepted ideas, urging us to reconsider
what we accept as reality.

2. Challenging Accepted Facts and Beliefs

Post-Structuralism focuses on how widely accepted facts and beliefs may serve the interests of
dominant groups in society, particularly within the realm of international relations. It emphasizes
the role of power in shaping these 'truths' and questions whether these facts are truly universal or
just social constructs that maintain the status quo. By questioning accepted norms, Post-
Structuralism seeks to reveal how certain groups hold power by influencing what is seen as true
or legitimate.

3. Skepticism Toward Universal Truths

Post-Structuralists are skeptical of the idea that universal laws or objective truths can ever be
attained. They argue that there is no external world independent of human perception and
interpretation. Our understanding of reality is always filtered through our own perspectives,
cultural lenses, and social contexts. This perspective challenges the idea that objective
knowledge is possible, as all knowledge is seen as subjective and shaped by various influences.

4. Foucault's Perspective on Interpretation

Michel Foucault, a key figure in Post-Structuralism, asserted that the world does not present
itself to us in a clear, readable way. He argued that we should not think of the world as having a
“legible face” that we can simply decipher to uncover objective truths. Instead, Foucault suggests
that knowledge and truth are constructed, not discovered, and that our interpretations of the
world are shaped by complex historical, social, and cultural forces. This idea supports the Post-
Structuralist view that truth is not universal but rather constructed and subject to change.

Skepticism Toward Universal Narratives

Post-Structuralism encourages researchers to question universal narratives that claim to offer an

objective worldview. These narratives are often based on pre-existing assumptions about what is
true, and they frequently reflect the interests and perspectives of those in positions of power.
Post-Structuralists argue that these "universal truths" are not objective but are constructed
through the lens of dominant social, political, and cultural forces, which can distort the true
diversity of human experiences.

2. Critique of Objective Truth Claims

Post-Structuralism is critical of any theory that asserts it can uncover objective facts or universal
truths. For Post-Structuralists, truth and knowledge are not things that can be discovered or
measured objectively; rather, they are subjective and shaped by various social, historical, and
cultural factors. This viewpoint challenges theories that claim to offer definitive, unchanging
truths, suggesting that knowledge is always contingent and influenced by power structures.

3. Conflict with Traditional International Relations Theories

Post-Structuralism stands in contrast to most traditional theories in International Relations (IR),

which often aim to offer universal explanations for global events or behaviors. Post-Structuralists
argue that these conventional theories fail to fully account for the complexity and diversity of
international relations because they tend to oversimplify global dynamics, often ignoring or
marginalizing alternative perspectives. By recognizing the subjective and constructed nature of
knowledge, Post-Structuralism challenges these theories' ability to grasp the full scope of
international interactions and power relations.

Knowledge as a Product of Power

Post-Structuralists argue that what is considered "knowledge" or "truth" is not an objective

reality but something shaped by powerful actors in society, known as "elites." These elites have
the power to define and promote certain ideas or narratives, which then become widely accepted
as truth. By controlling knowledge and its dissemination, elites maintain their power and
influence over others.

2. Elites in Society

Elites are individuals or groups that hold significant power, wealth, or authority in society. They
come in many forms and occupy various roles, such as government ministers who set policies,
business leaders who control market directions, and media outlets that shape public perception.
Elites often also hold the title of "experts," lending their authority to reinforce perspectives that
serve their interests and ensure their continued dominance.

3. Elites and the Example of Famines

Jenny Edkins (2006) highlights how elites manipulate narratives to control how events are
perceived. For example, when famines (extreme food shortages) are framed by elites as "natural
disasters," they remove the political context that might explain why such crises happen. In
reality, famines are often a result of political actions, such as exploitation, poor policy decisions,
or the manipulation of food prices for profit. By framing famines as unavoidable natural events,
elites avoid scrutiny for the political and economic factors that contribute to such crises. This
example shows how elites shape knowledge to obscure their responsibility and maintain their
power.

Manipulation of Discourse

Post-Structuralism emphasizes that elites achieve and maintain power not only through their
authority but through the manipulation of discourse. Discourse refers to the ways in which
language, ideas, and narratives are structured and communicated in society. By controlling
discourse, elites can influence how knowledge is shaped and ensure that certain perspectives or
beliefs are accepted as truth.

2. Role of Discourses in Shaping Knowledge

Discourses play a crucial role in determining what is accepted as valid knowledge or

unquestionable truth within society. They create the framework through which people understand
the world, shaping how we think about issues, events, and identities. When a certain way of
thinking becomes dominant, it can make alternative ideas seem unreasonable or irrational,
reinforcing the power of those who control the discourse.
3. Dominant Discourses and Elite Power

Post-Structuralists refer to the discourses that reinforce the power of elites as "dominant" or
"official" discourses. These discourses serve the interests of the elites by making their ideas and
actions appear natural or inevitable, while suppressing or discrediting opposing views. The
power of these dominant discourses lies in their ability to marginalize alternative perspectives, to
the point where questioning them is often seen as irrational or outside the bounds of acceptable
thought. This process helps maintain the control of elites over knowledge and societal beliefs.

The Role of Language in Post-Structuralism

For poststructuralists, language is a fundamental tool in shaping and sustaining dominant

discourses. Through language, powerful actors can influence how concepts, events, and actors
are framed, defining what is understood as truth or knowledge. Language serves as the medium
through which meanings are constructed and reinforced, often to the benefit of those in power.

2. Binary Oppositions in Language

Poststructuralists argue that language organizes concepts into binary oppositions—pairs of

contrasting terms where one element is privileged over the other. These oppositions help to
create meaning by establishing a hierarchy where one side is seen as more valuable or legitimate.
For example, oppositions like "good versus evil" or "developed versus undeveloped" carry
embedded power relations that favor one side, reinforcing certain values or ideas while
marginalizing others.

3. Binary Oppositions in International Relations

In International Relations (IR), binary oppositions are frequently used by elites to

shape public perception and create favorable meanings around global events. These
oppositions allow elites to control how certain situations are understood by the public.
A common binary opposition in IR is the "us versus them" framework, which
distinguishes groups or countries as either part of "our" world (civilized, developed)
or as "other" (uncivilized, undeveloped). This distinction simplifies complex global
dynamics and makes it easier for elites to promote their own agendas while
reinforcing power structures.

Foucault's Concept of a 'Regime of Truth'

Michel Foucault, a key figure in post-structuralism, introduced the concept of a "regime of

truth." This refers to the way that dominant discourses—shaped by elites and reinforced through
language—come to be accepted as unquestionable truths within society. A "regime of truth"
operates by presenting certain ideas, narratives, or knowledge as facts, even though they are
socially constructed and often serve the interests of the powerful.

2. The Role of Elites, Discourses, and Language

In Foucault's view, a "regime of truth" is maintained through the interplay of elite actors,
dominant discourses, and language. Elites (such as politicians, business leaders, and media
figures) control the discourses that define what is considered true or valid. Through language,
these elites establish binary oppositions and hierarchies (e.g., good vs. evil, developed vs.
undeveloped) that promote their own interests while making certain ideas appear natural or self-
evident.

3. The Unquestioned Dominance of the Ruling Discourse

A regime of truth operates so effectively that its dominant discourse becomes unquestioned and
accepted as the "truth" by the wider public. People begin to accept the narratives and meanings
constructed by elites without critically examining their underlying power structures. As a result,
the interests of the elites are protected and reinforced, while alternative viewpoints are
marginalized or disregarded. The power of the "regime of truth" lies in its ability to shape
perceptions and maintain control over knowledge and societal norms.