Is post-structuralism a continuation and development of structuralism or a form of rebellion against it? The post-structuralism has no courage to reject structuralism's conviction. Thus, the post-structuralists accuse structuralist not to follow through the implication of views about language on their intellectual system is based.
As we saw one of structuralism's characteristics of views, is the notion that language doesn't reflect or record the word : rather it shapes it, so that how we see, is what we see. The post-structuralist manages this belief that we enter a universe of uncertainty. Since we don't have any access to fix the landmark which is beyond linguistics processing. Hence, we have a standard by which to measure anything.
Without a fixed point of reference against your movement, you can not tell, you are moving or not at all. Sometimes, you have experienced. Supposed, you are sitting on a stationary train between yourself and a far platform. When another train begins to move, you can sense that it is your train. But when the train has gone, you can see the fixed point of your train.
Post-structuralism says, in effect, that fixed in intellectual reference points are permanently removed by properly taking on board what structuralist said about language. Or, to change the analogy, in space, where there is no gravity, there is no up and down. These pronouncements about language send us into a gravity free universe without upside down or right way up.
This situation, of being without intellectual reference points, is one way of describing what post-structuralist, call the recentered universe, one in which definition. We can not know where we are, since all concepts which previously defined the center, and hence margin, have been deconstructed or undermined, in the manner described later.
The characteristics of concern of post-structuralism, as hinted here, may at first seem pretty remote. Why this constant high anxiety about languages, we might ask, when it seems to work perfectly well most of the time in day-to-day purposes?
But on reflection, we may find that it is precisely on this matter of anxiety about languages. We can most easily identify with post-structuralist concerns. For these anxious feeling seem remarkably pervasive whenever we have to use language at any level beyond that of casual daily exchange with people. We know very well and whose status is same as our own.
For instance, think of any slight less straightforward language situation, like writing to your bank, writing an essay striking up friendships with a stranger at a party, or sending a letter of condolence. In these cases, and anymore, there is an almost universally felt anxiety. The language will express things. We had not indeed, or convey the wrong impression, or betray our ignorance, callousness, or confusion.
Even when we use a phrase like 'If you see what I mean' or 'In a manner of speaking. There is the same underlying sense. We are not really in control of the linguistic system. These feelings, writ large, are really the same sources, as the radical linguistics skepticism so typical of deconstruction. Here, then, is a way into the post-structuralism frame of mind. It lies very many attitudes and anxieties which most of the experience.
This is the end of the article 'theoretical difference between structuralism and post-structuralism'. I end here it, because most of the reader feel bored to read long article.
You must be logged in to post a comment.