Post-structuralism

Cannibal Ox

The post-structuralists were not post-structuralists, according to themselves. In fact, you could see their entire body of work as the antithesis of the act of being called a post-structuralist. But that's not the point, because we need use amongst all of this chaos, and what utility would there be in not referring to a group of thinkers who share so much affinity without reducing and structuring them within a category?

That's a pretty pompous introduction, but it is a topic on post-structuralism, so what would it be without pomposity? I was wondering what people here thought of them, if anyone has read their work and what their reaction is to them? For those who don't, post-structuralism normally refers to Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari and a few other (French mostly) thinkers.

I'm generally skeptical, but I find it extremely difficult to find a criticism that you could level at the post-structuralists which wouldn't be received by a smirk, and a kind of, you don't know what we're doing, response. I've never read any sophist text, but I'd assume that it shares a lot of affinity with the post-structuralists, stylistically at least.

I like Foucault, and I like his genealogical method. I think his idea that subjects are constituted within discursive regimes of power, and that objects of knowledge are producded, categorised and treated by power, has some 'truth' to it (as it were). I think it has a lot to offer a discipline like sociology, in terms of research in to identities like gender, like nationality, like religion, and it can, in that kind of research, help to shed some light on the constructed origins of cultural and social identities.

Deleuze and Guattari, I'm not to sure about. I get the impression from D&G that their entire project is about revealing human beings habit of categorizing, labeling, and, in a sense, trying to impose order on chaos. If that's true, then order itself is constructed, and can be deconstructed, and this is where things like the body without organs spring from. Why a man can be a horse, even if he's not a horse. I think they make an attempt at reconstructing, in terms of the rhizome, and lateral thinking, but I'm entirely unsure as to the utility, or the possibility of that project.

So, has anyone else read any of their stuff? And if so, what do you think about it?

Joycey

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

The post-structuralists were not post-structuralists, according to themselves. In fact, you could see their entire body of work as the antithesis of the act of being called a post-structuralist. But that's not the point, because we need use amongst all of this chaos, and what utility would there be in not referring to a group of thinkers who share so much affinity without reducing and structuring them within a category?

I think its a term that most of them reject, like existentialism for pretty much anyone apart from Sartre. Presumably what makes each of them post-structuralists is the response to structuralism which exists in each of their work, and to the extent that such a response is explicit they can be called post-structuralists. However just because they respond to structuralist ideas/methodology (if there is a structuralist methodology?) doesnt mean they have anything else in common. I havent read any Deleuze or Guattari so I cant vouch for them, but I understand Foucault and Derrida as carrying out seperate projects, often at odds with one another. Now I may be mistaken in thinking that but my point is that I dont think the term really has much use outside of attacking late 20th century continental philosophy in general or for use as a label for an academic philosophy degree.

I'm generally skeptical, but I find it extremely difficult to find a criticism that you could level at the post-structuralists which wouldn't be received by a smirk, and a kind of, you don't know what we're doing, response.

I came across this exact response to Derrida's work in a quote from Foucault which is on either the deconstructionism or Derrida wikipedia article. I dont think anyone else ive ever read is as opaque as Derrida. Blatently deliberately so too. TBH ive lost all patience with him. Ive read a couple of essays by him recently, really struggled to get through them and found it really unrewarding when Id finally managed it. That said, I know a couple of people on my course who are mad about him, but I just cant find anything really worth spending that much effort decoding in there.

I like Foucault, and I like his genealogical method. I think his idea that subjects are constituted within discursive regimes of power, and that objects of knowledge are producded, categorised and treated by power, has some 'truth' to it (as it were). I think it has a lot to offer a discipline like sociology, in terms of research in to identities like gender, like nationality, like religion, and it can, in that kind of research, help to shed some light on the constructed origins of cultural and social identities.

Yeah I find him interesting as well. Im definitely gonna have to sit down and read him properly some time soon. Ive read (volume 1? of) The History of Sexuality which was great, never took notes on it or anything so ive forgotten most of it now but I really enjoyed it. Discipline and Punish also seemed like it was going to be interesting but I never got much of the way into it. Id like to maybe do some kind of a reading group on it or some other Foucault work over the Summer or something, we could maybe set up a branch of it on this forum. Would be interesting to try anyway.

Deleuze and Guattari, I'm not to sure about. I get the impression from D&G that their entire project is about revealing human beings habit of categorizing, labeling, and, in a sense, trying to impose order on chaos. If that's true, then order itself is constructed, and can be deconstructed, and this is where things like the body without organs spring from. Why a man can be a horse, even if he's not a horse. I think they make an attempt at reconstructing, in terms of the rhizome, and lateral thinking, but I'm entirely unsure as to the utility, or the possibility of that project.

Yeah ive only ever come across their stuff second hand, it seems interesting though. And theres less of the fashionable/emptiness about them than there is Derrida.

Deleuze is definitely one id like to get into. Its always in contexts of radical political criticism/praxis that I come across him. Often talking about redifining urban spaces, invisibility and things, all of which sounds fascinating. Unfortunately I have no oppurtunity to study him this year, and probably wont have time to get into him any time soon...

What reading you have done, did you do it in a university or for yourself? Have you read much Derrida? I understand that he was interesting at the beginning of his career, then started writing complete up-his-own-ass sh1te for 20 or 30 years and started writing good stuff again at the end. I havent read enough to see if thats true though.

extrinzic

I haven’t read anything of Foucault, but I tried to listen to some lectures I found on the internet, and he lost me. I have read some Derrida (chapters from his Act’s of Religion), and whilst I think he is overly long winded, in the text I have read I have found some interesting points.

Personally, I really enjoyed reading about Hermeneutics. The Hermeneutic Circle seems to me to be a great analysis of how our understanding (prejudice) interprets text, and in turn, is broadened by the new meaning we find in the text. I particularly like how Heidegger turned the Cartesian modal of reality on its head with a view of reality that is situated in the experience of the existence of the individual. How the world cannot exist without the individual and the individual cannot exist without the world, we are one and in some sense, the same.

I think that it is absurd to suppose that our understanding is not imposed on us to some extent, the sun exists and we must label it. However, we are free to evolve and connect signifiers in new ways, so long as there is some semblance of consistency, so long as the whole relates to the signified in some respect.

ANarcho-Munk

Joycey wrote: »

Yeah I find him interesting as well. Im definitely gonna have to sit down and read him properly some time soon. Ive read (volume 1? of) The History of Sexuality which was great, never took notes on it or anything so ive forgotten most of it now but I really enjoyed it. Discipline and Punish also seemed like it was going to be interesting but I never got much of the way into it. Id like to maybe do some kind of a reading group on it or some other Foucault work over the Summer or something, we could maybe set up a branch of it on this forum. Would be interesting to try anyway.

I picked up 'The Order of Things' by Foucault a few days ago.
As I've been meaning to get something by him for such a long time now, i'm sort of nerdishly excited to finally start getting into it.
The reading group suggestion for over the Summer is good and i'd go with it.
If there is enough people from Cork interested I could get a space really easily to have a proper reading and discussion group if so desired.

Often talking about redifining urban spaces, invisibility and things, all of which sounds fascinating.

Are you referring to Situationism??

Joycey

ANarcho-Munk wrote: »

I picked up 'The Order of Things' by Foucault a few days ago.
As I've been meaning to get something by him for such a long time now, i'm sort of nerdishly excited to finally start getting into it.
The reading group suggestion for over the Summer is good and i'd go with it.
If there is enough people from Cork interested I could get a space really easily to have a proper reading and discussion group if so desired.

Ah sh1t, something that actually would have been worth doing in cork... Im over in Brighton at the moment and doubt il be moving home over the Summer. If I am at home for any length of time (3 weeks to a month) id love to do something, even a shortish text would be good.

Edit: I think the first chapter of The Order of Things is about that painting Las Meninas as well. Should be a treat to read

Are you referring to Situationism??

Definitely related to it anyway. Have a read of this:
http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/the_art_of_war/

Scary stuff.

Also came across him a few days ago when reading stuff by Terre Thaemlitz, a transgender house DJ that I like. She was talking about all kinds of stuff which either was explicitly attributed to Deleuze or at least heavily influenced by him to do with invisibility, and whether for a minority group its better to be 'below the radar' kinda thing or openly represented in mainstream capitalist media.

You might be interested in this actually (judging by your name and your politics):
http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/
Just started a reading group on it yesterday. Ties together a whole lot of recent continental theory and turns it into a kind of revolutionary pamphlet type thing. Something like the Communist Manifesto but contemporary and better written.

http://revolutionaryboredom.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/the-coming-insurrection-some-thoughts/
Thats a review by one of the guys in the reading group.

http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/the-war-against-preterrorism/
Thats about the political stuff thats happening to the people who wrote it. Dunno if youve heard about it.

Lots contemporary French and German philosophers have written a letter defending them, people like Agamben and Ranciere.

Joe1919

Cannibal Ox wrote: »

......then order itself is constructed, and can be deconstructed,.........

Foucault illustrates this point (The Order of Things,) by quoting a 'certain Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it is written that 'animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off" look like flies'.

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

Foucault illustrates this point (The Order of Things,) by quoting a 'certain Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it is written that 'animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off" look like flies'.

Do you happen to know where that list comes from? Ive almost certain ive seen it before somewhere. If not that one then one very like it

Joe1919

Joycey wrote: »

Do you happen to know where that list comes from? Ive almost certain ive seen it before somewhere. If not that one then one very like it

http://books.google.ie/books?id=dw_TaM5l5rcC&pg=PR16&dq=foucault+order+of+things+pigs&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowledge%27s_Taxonomy

I am not a scholar of Foucault as such but I did browse through some of his books and used some quotes in essays etc. Many of his books are dry and difficult reading. (e.g. Archaeology of knowledge & Order of things)
The most readable of his books (imo) is 'Discipline & Punish'.

In my opinion, the most interesting thing Foucault has to say is how power structures knowledge and how we think. He is influenced (imo) by Nietzsche in terms of putting value & power (& instinct) at a much higher level than truth.

He also uses the 'genealogy' method (like Nietzsche) and his writings are more 'history' than philosophy. But he is criticised by many 'objective' historians for not been very accurate. However, post-modern historians (Hayden White, Keith Jenkins) would tend to admire Foucault as they don't really believe in 'objective' history in the first place.

Much of this idea can be traced back to Hegel. Hegel said for example, that it did not matter whether there ever existed a 'historical Jesus' or not. What matters is that people believe that he once existed and hence Jesus exists in the consciousness of Christians. Hence the emphasis is taken off 'historical fact' (truth) and put onto 'historical consciousness' and myths (value). History and the truth is (as such) created by the historian using traces.

Poetry and myth then can become more important than 'historical fact'.
Interestingly, this idea is not entirely new. Aristotle in his Poetics observed 'The true difference [between the poet and historian] is that one relates what has happened, the other what may happen. Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thing than history: for poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular.'

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

http://books.google.ie/books?id=dw_TaM5l5rcC&pg=PR16&dq=foucault+order+of+things+pigs&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_Emporium_of_Benevolent_Knowledge%27s_Taxonomy

Ah its Borges. Knew id read it somewhere before. Brilliant

Cannibal Ox

Joycey wrote:

I came across this exact response to Derrida's work in a quote from Foucault which is on either the deconstructionism or Derrida wikipedia article. I dont think anyone else ive ever read is as opaque as Derrida. Blatently deliberately so too. TBH ive lost all patience with him. Ive read a couple of essays by him recently, really struggled to get through them and found it really unrewarding when Id finally managed it.

I've stayed clear of Derrida as much as possible. I know I should get my head around him some day, but I might just do it through an introduction rather then his texts.

I've been doing an essay on Judith Butler recently, and if I wasn't doing the essay I would have stopped a long time ago. She is extremely obtuse, and when you brake down what it is she's arguing, it isn't that complex. It doesn't need to be written like it is. If anything the language that she uses is a tactic to hide what it is she's saying, because what she's saying can be very questionable.

Joycey wrote:

Ive read (volume 1? of) The History of Sexuality which was great, never took notes on it or anything so ive forgotten most of it now but I really enjoyed it. Discipline and Punish also seemed like it was going to be interesting but I never got much of the way into it. Id like to maybe do some kind of a reading group on it or some other Foucault work over the Summer or something, we could maybe set up a branch of it on this forum. Would be interesting to try anyway.

The first book of History of Sexuality is great. I think it's easy enough to read, but it's complex enough that every time you read it you understand it at another level. The reading group is a good idea, we could do something small, an article or something, over the forum and see how it goes.

Joycey wrote:

Deleuze is definitely one id like to get into. Its always in contexts of radical political criticism/praxis that I come across him. Often talking about redifining urban spaces, invisibility and things, all of which sounds fascinating.

Deleuze and Guattari are interesting, and they'll definitely stretch your mind out. I like the idea of multiplicites/the rhizome, but I'm not convinced about the little I understand around their ideas of interpretation. The way they write is really what I like about them, the methodology underlying how they write is fascinating. They have an explicit reason for writing the way they do, and it's a way of trying to implement the philosophy they're espousing. So, when you're reading them, you're not just reading what they're arguing, you're also watching their philosophy in action.

Joycey wrote:

What reading you have done, did you do it in a university or for yourself?

I've done parts myself, most through university though. I don't think I would have understood it if I'd tried it all on my own. At least not without a few introductory texts. I've done bits and pieces of Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, and Butler. I've read Negri's and Hartt's Empire book as well, didn't think much of that.

I think my main problem is that I come to it from a politics/sociology degree, and even though a lot of the theory in politics/sociology can be obtuse, it always has an aspect of utility to it. A meaning. There's a program for change in it. Post-structuralism doesn't, immediately at least, have that, and it gets on my nerves. I can see how it might be revealing, but I don't see the use in it, and any texts that I've read where people try to draw some kind of political or social use from it I haven't found particularly convincing. Biopolitics being a good example, Butler's performitivity theory another, and the "radical" political theories that Hardt and Negri drew from Deleuze and Guattari (which I think is ludicrous) probably the best.

Maybe that's a slight exaggeration, I have seen some good sociological studies that draw on Foucault, particularly around gender, race, and culture in general.

ANarcho-Munk wrote:

As I've been meaning to get something by him for such a long time now, i'm sort of nerdishly excited to finally start getting into it.

I found the foreword to Order of Things fascinating, but the first chapter (Las Meninas) put me off the first time I tried to read it. It's a brilliant book, and if you can read that you can do any of his books, but it can be very, very oblique at times. Don't be put off though! An introduction can help a lot.

Joe1919 wrote:

In my opinion, the most interesting thing Foucault has to say is how power structures knowledge and how we think. He is influenced (imo) by Nietzsche in terms of putting value & power (& instinct) at a much higher level than truth.

He also uses the 'genealogy' method (like Nietzsche) and his writings are more 'history' than philosophy. But he is criticised by many 'objective' historians for not been very accurate. However, post-modern historians (Hayden White, Keith Jenkins) would tend to admire Foucault as they don't really believe in 'objective' history in the first place.

I agree completely with the first part. I'm not entirely convinced by his work around bio-politics, or, I'm not entirely sure what the point of it is. I think the criticism from historians stems from his books not being put in the wider context of his project. If you read them and bare in mind subjects being constituted by discourse and all of that, they make sense. The fact that he ignores facts, or picks and chooses his examples, isn't so problematic. But if you them as history books, then they fall apart.

I didn't know that about Hegel. I've been meaning to read him for a while, but I haven't gotten round to it yet.