post-structuralism

[John E Richardson]

dear Cícero,

glad to be of some help. I imagine that others would also post a reply
at any other time of the year - a lot of people are on their hols at the
moment.

all the best

john


> dear John, 
> 
> Thanks for your answer. It surely helped. I would be also glad  to get
> more comments from people all around who participate in this list.
> 
> Cícero
> 
> 2005/8/11, John E Richardson <johnerichardson at cds-web.net>:
> > 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
> >
> 
> 

John E Richardson
Dept of Journalism Studies
Sheffield University