post-structuralism

[John E Richardson]

Dear Cícero,

apologies for the delay in replying; I've been on holiday. 
Post/Structuralism is not really my area of expertise, but I just
thought that I'd throw my hat into the ring; perhaps something I write
will be of some use. 

My understanding is that authors labelled post-structuralist (and I say
'labelled' because they universally did not call themselves this) are
authors who previously wrote within the structualist paradigm.
Structuralism, as I understand it, examines social phenomena in relation
to an invariant structure through which meaning is produced.
Linguistically, of course, this is epitomised by the work of de Saussure
and his synchronic analysis of the internal constitution of signs. This
was then developed by Levi-Strauss who used the langue/parole
distinction to argue that such structures form a "deep grammar" of society. 
During the sixties, this started to be re-evaluated, given that many
authors recognised that it encourages ahistoricism and bourgeois social
theory (specifically of social continuity and the denial of the
possibility of change). History was injected into the mix, and it is
(generally speaking) the notion of historic or temporal analysis that
distinguishes the post-structuralist from the structuralist. That is,
the analysis of how structures both endure and change. In linguistics,
this is the distinction between the diachronic and the synchronic:
post-structuralists argue that structural analysis was generally
synchronic and thereby suppressed historical or diachronic analyses.
Foucault, of course, developed his diachronic analysis using two
methods: genealogy (the study of historic continuities) and archaeology
(the study of historic dead-ends). 

So, given this, of the list you provide, only Foucault could be
classified as p-s, because he started as a structuralist. The other
three are concerned with issues of structure and agency (a similar
dialectic as diachronic and the synchronic analysis) as approached
through Marxist social theory. Bakhtin I am least sure of, though my
understanding is that he is considered a humanist Marxist; Bourdieu has
also been called a 'post-Marxist' (just to complicate things further!).

Hope some of this helps.

Best

John

Dear colleagues,

I am now joining this list and I would like to start by asking a
question. Are these authors:Fairclough, Foucault, Bourdieu and
Bakhtin, poststructuralists? Could you please write a few words
explaining about it? I would be glad to be answered. Thank you,

Cícero Barbosa

John E Richardson
Dept of Journalism Studies
Sheffield University