Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Welcome
once again to the series of video lectures on cultural studies. We are today at the end
of module 1 and this lecture, the tenth lecture is on poststructuralism as you are aware.
We looked at two other theories, we began with structuralism and then we went on to
Marxism for which we devoted two lectures, and today, we are going to look at poststructuralism.
Needless to say, this does not mean, that these are the only three theories in cultural
studies. As I had mentioned earlier, what I would do is, when I go on to the other modules,
for instance, when I look at key concepts - a gender, for instance, that is when I would
be looking at feminist theory, then I go into the module which deals with virtual culture,
I would look at post humanism and so on. So, welcome back once again. As you are also
aware, these lectures are being recorded under the National Program on Technology Enhanced
Learning, which is an initiative, a joint venture by the Indian Institutes of Technology
and the Indian Institute of Science. My name is Lisa and I teach English at IIT Guwahati.
Well, as always, we do a recap of what we had discussed in the last lecture and you
would recall that in the last lecture, lecture 9 of module 1, was devoted to Marxism. It
was the second part of the two part lectures on the theory, the cultural theory of Marxism.
Well, to, I shall run through very quickly over, which I think are the important points
in the last lecture. You would recall this quotation from the communist manifesto, the
history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggle, the class struggles.
And we saw that over the ages, under different modes of production we may divide, you know,
the population into two binary opposites, two major classes, so to speak, which are:
master -- slave, the overlord - serf in feudalism, master - slave in ancient slavery, the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat under capitalism and the coloniser and the colonised under imperialism.
We also looked at two very important concepts, which are, may be, the building blocks of
Marxism and these are the base and this is the structure. You would recall, that we understood
the base as comprising the relations of production and forces of production, that is, in a mode
of production, at any given point of time. And we saw, that Marx argued, that on the
base, on this foundation, so to speak, there always arises the super structure, which are
to do with, you know, our cultural arrangement. If you look at the, all of these are really,
our cultural arrangements and they comprise at the legal system: the family, education,
religion and ultimately our consciousness, which is within this theory, our social consciousness.
Next, we went on to define ideology as a set of beliefs that people hold, which act as,
you know, set of lenses through which we look at the world, and these ideologies give us
maps of meaning. You would recall from the first two or three lectures that with, which
I began these lecture series, that culture is also known as maps of meaning.
So, ideology, which is you know a set of beliefs, values that we hold, you know, give us or
form for us, to construct, so to speak, for us maps of cultural meaning.
Then, we also looked at how consent is manufactured from people through processes of socialization,
which are done through certain cultural institutions like religion, education and the mass media.
We looked at the concept of hegemony as a leadership with the consent of the led, and
we looked very quickly, of course, not in detail, at Althusser's repressive state apparatuses
like etcetera, which are coercive measures to consent and the ideological state apparatuses,
which are really soft policing; these are through the cultural institutions like , etcetera.
And meaning formation, we saw as really a sight of, you know, a sight, a very contentious
sight, a sight of struggle; there is a tussle for meaning, where among dominant groups and
ideologies seek to, seek to maintain, maintain the, the status quo, maintain the status quo
and, you know, to standardize meaning.
Then, we also looked at what practice meant for Karl Marx? And the very famous quotation,
the philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point however,
is to change it.
Well, we now come to what today's, the topic for today's lecture and discussion. The topic
is poststructuralism and you know, that we looked at structuralism and as I said, if
perhaps, some of you may feel, that I should have done poststructuralism after structuralism,
but the reason why I did, you know, put in two lectures on Marxism is that Marxism may
be looked as basically, a structural, structural way of looking at culture. And poststructuralism
moves away from certainties, it may move away from looking at structures and that is why,
I decided to keep poststructuralism to the end of this module.
Well, what is the difference between structuralism and poststructuralism? We note here immediately,
that there is a post here - structuralism and poststructuralism. So, there are two meanings
here, one is obviously as, coming after, which would mean that poststructuralism is a continuation.
A continuation of structuralism, which means that there are certain elements in structuralism,
that are also present in poststructuralism and on the other hand, it is also a critique
and I, we had an occasion to look at the term critique briefly in one of my earlier lectures,
and what is the critique? A critique is not exactly criticism, a critique is an, a critique
is, is, an exercise that we do, in order to lay there the assumptions of a certain theory.
So, what are the assumptions or the presumptions of particular theory, and which leads that
theory to argue in a certain way? So, poststructuralism is both, both, a continuation
and a critique of structuralism and in what follows, we shall see, how.?
Let me quickly quote from the Sage Handbook by Chris Barker, some of you would find this
extremely helpful in the sense that, you know, the concepts and terms have been very beautifully
explained in, in this handbook. The prefix post clearly suggests after, thus
poststructuralism is after structuralism in that the terms of this philosophical streams
are ones that involves both the absorption of key ideas from structuralism and the critique
and the transformation. We do not stop at critique; we also aim at
a transformation of structuralism or structuralist ideas and premises.
Well, I, I strongly feel that you know, we need to bring in a term from philosophy here.
A branch of philosophy, which looks at knowledge because knowledge, within the post structuralist
theoretical enterprise is highly problematised; so, it is important for, for us to know a
certain terms from philosophy and that has always been my belief, and as far as possible,
my practice, even when I teach in the class rooms in IIT Guwahati.
What is epistemology? Epistemology is or may be, very beautifully defined as the theory
of knowledge. So, what do we mean when we say, theory of knowledge?
When we say theory of knowledge, we include among other things, these three things: one
is the origin or the source of knowledge. What is, if I say, I have a piece of knowledge?
Then I need to ask, I need to theorize and I need to speculate, I need to, you know,
do may be a critique of that piece of knowledge and I would first ask, where did that knowledge
come from? Where did I get my knowledge? Is it from, is it appealing to rational, the
rationalist school, or am I appealing to the empirical school or like a many people, am
I appealing to a certain mystical, you know, source for knowledge?
So, one, is the source or origin of knowledge; two, the limits and boundaries. When you say
limits and boundaries, we do not exactly mean limitations. What we would really mean here
is to ask questions like, what are the boundaries within which this piece of knowledge, that
we are talking about or we are forwarding? What are the boundaries within which such
knowledge is possible? So, we need to, what we call, delimit the boundaries.
And what is the state of knowledge or what is the status of that piece of knowledge?
So, these things go into epistemology and as I said, I reiterate, that it is important
to look at this branch of philosophy when we talk about poststructuralism.
Now, if I ask you, what do you think about truth? What is truth, and in this case truth
with a capital T? Do you think truth is universal? Do you think, do you hold that there is something
called universal truth, which all of us could access?
Stay with these, with this point and we shall, this will come, you know, this will fall into
place as far as structuralism is concerned, in the next few minutes.
Second, what is belief and what is knowledge? Is belief the same as knowledge? Another question
would be, is belief, when this belief become knowledge?
In epistemology, we hold that knowledge is a belief, that has been justified. So, when
does belief become knowledge? Belief becomes knowledge when it has been justified; so,
belief is known as justified knowledge.
Now, I would again use a quotation from Chris Barker, and I shall explain it in relation
to what I have just raised. Knowledge is not a question in structure, poststructuralism
of true discovery. Look at this, knowledge is nothing to do with true discovery, I have
discovered this and this is truth and it applies also to science; it applies to science in
the sense, that you cannot take any piece of knowledge for granted.
Well, let us read, continue to read this. Knowledge is not a question of true discovery,
but of the construction of interpretations. And I need you to look at this word closely,
one is, on the other hand, we have this claim within, well, a structuralist framework for
instance, within a structuralist framework that say, which says, that it is possible
to discover the truth. On the other hand, within poststructuralism,
we do not talk about discoveries and truth, we talk about only interpretations. So, the
world, there is data in front of you, reality as data, and that data comes to you in the
form of interpretation. So, knowledge is not a question of true discovery, but of the construction
of interpretations about the world, that are taken to be true.
In, so far, as the idea of truth has a historical purchase, it is the consequence of power,
that is, of whose interpretations come to count as truth. So, it is, well, a poststructuralism
holds that you cannot look at knowledge, truth in a, in a, in a very naïve or in at face
value. Whenever we have interpretation, we will ask,
whose interpretation is it or it is? And we know that, that interpretation is tied to
another word, it is very seminal and which we shall look at here in briefly, but in another
module; it would be the topic of a whole lecture. So, whose interpretations? The play of power,
that is important.
So, therefore, knowledge, truth, universal truth in poststructuralism, these becomes
simply a matter of, a, interpretation, b, language games. Recall from my first two lectures,
we had, from the first or second lecture we looked at the Wittgenstein's concept of language
games and how language and language games, these two terms are similar to cultural studies,
as you know, as different from the study of culture, we recall to; in my first or second
lecture, I had mentioned this. If at all, we have to make a difference between
the study of culture in an anthropological sense and, and be in cultural studies, so
we these, so truth, universal truth, knowledge, these are matters according to poststructuralism,
related to interpretation, language, games and power.
So, the whole, you know, you from your childhood, you may have heard of this slogan - knowledge
is power. So, knowledge is power takes on a wholly new sort of connotation, connotation
and recall differentiation between denotation and connotation. So, it takes on a whole new
connotation when we talk about knowledge is power within cultural studies.
So, well, now, how does poststructuralism problematize meaning? You would recall that
in structuralism we learned that meaning, according to, this is orient theory, meaning
is differential here, and relational. It operates in a network, in a system of structures in
which, in which meaning emanates or meaning comes about in a differential and relational
network.
Now, what poststructuralism does is, it, it furthers, it furthers this theory to well,
quite an extreme, really. Now, let us look at it and we shall see the, a seminal figure
here, theorist here. Again, in, in structuralism, we saw that meanings come about as organization
of signs, and a certain stability of meaning is established through structures.
Now, in poststructuralism, the, you know in poststructuralism, this all different differential
and relational aspects of meaning, is, is, is pushed to, to such a limit, that meaning
is seen as something that is endlessly deferred. Now, what is the meaning of deferred? You
know, that the meaning of defer is to postpone, because we defer something, you defer an appointment
etcetera. So, meaning is deferred, that is, you can never come or never arrive at a complete
meaning, meaning is always provisional and meaning is always deferred, in the sense,
that you can never grasp; you can never grasp a signifier totally.
And this is theorist that I have referred to a just a while ago, his name is Jacques
Derrida who is a French theorist and I am sure, many of you have heard of Derrida.
Derrida held the following, because of the very nature of words or signs as being relational
and not referential. Recall, that signs are not referential, they do not by themselves
refer directly, or in a one to one corresponding with reality; they are not referential, they
are relational. They will now, because of this feature of words or signs, they will
always carry with them traces of other related words and signs, and one of the examples are,
a very common example in structuralism, which I am sure every teacher, you know, almost
every teacher uses, is the difference between cat, hat, rat, mat, sat. And structuralism
holds, that the meaning of rat or cat or mat comes about not by itself, but in a system
of differences within the whole sign; these words, of where only the consonants are different,
so we understand them in a system of differences. Now, Derrida holds that the, when you say
cat or rat or mat, each of these words will carry traces of other related words and signs.
For instance, when you also, when you in another access, when you say cat, you, there is also
the trace of cat being not a dog. So two, two domestic animals, a cat is just
simply not a cat, it is in fact, it is not simply that it is a cat, but more importantly,
within the structuralist and poststructuralist framework, the cat is not a dog.
So, Derrida says that every term, because it is in a relational framework, it cannot
help but carry the traces of the related signs that are there, in the system.
Therefore, and let us look at the slide, therefore, Derrida says, uses a French word called differance,
and this is the term he says, that we should not use the term difference, but differance,
which means both, this word differance means both, to differ and to defer.
Difference from structuralism and differance from poststructuralism - the word differance
carries with it the meanings of both, so meaning is both, it both differs and is forever deferred.
I would like to quickly look at an apt quotation from Pramod Kumar, Prammod Nayar, a book which
I had mentioned in my first lecture, as you know, which I think is, would be a very useful
book for those of you who are beginning cultural studies. And as you know, these lectures are
recorded primarily, for students who are, who opt for humanities electives in engineering
colleges, so in that sense this would, book, I think would be very useful to you.
So, the quotation runs, thus reading or interpretation is the movement through the chain of signs,
seeking, and look at this, a temporary meaning, a temporary meaning from or at each halt.
So, meaning is provisional, meaning is always temporary and why so? Because meaning is deferred.
This suggests that every signifier, a word or a sign leads not to a stable end-signified,
but to more signifiers. This is very important, a signified within structuralism, we saw a
signifier reach to a signified, the signifier was what? Signifier was a sound, pattern or
it was a mark on the board or the page or this PC, and the signified was the concept.
But this is how they revise, poststructuralist revise structuralist or structuralism, in
that there, a signifier would not lead to a signified, but to more signifies, and this
really is a very seminal point that you we need to grasp when nearing poststructuralism.
Now what does this mean? Nayar says, this implies that meaning is never fully graspable.
So, there is always something in meaning that escapes us; when we think that we have caught
in hold of meaning, it is an illusion. Meaning escapes us simply because, remember what Derrida
said, a sign would carry traces from other sides.
This implies that meaning is never fully graspable, and the final meaning is always postponed
or deferred.
Therefore, the very categories, now let us look at this, this representation here, the
very categories with which we carve out the world, the very categories through which we
understand the world, are not essentialist and they are not ontological; they have no
clear cut, once and for all, given a census. So, our very categories themselves are what?
They have social constructions and very importantly, they are social constructions through language,
which means that they are social constructions through, through what? Through sign systems.
A very radical departure from previous ways of looking at the world, at the world, at
reality and at categories, for instance; so, categories are social constructions, and that
too through language; so, they are linguistic constructions.
Therefore, in language, we would then say, following Derrida, that there are no pure
or stable signifiers; there are no pure signifiers. So, this is what we have looked at just a
while ago.
Hence, words like deferral, substitution and supplementation, within the meaning system
words; meaning is deferred, meaning is always substituted by another meaning and which is
a Derridian term. There is always a supplementation in the whole meaning process.
Now, you know, using these theoretical tools of poststructuralism on to our understanding
of culture, how would we then use this for understanding of culture as a theoretical
tool? We would say that in culture, identity, the question of identity and I shall devote
another a whole lecture on identity. For now, it is, it is important for us to look at what
poststructuralism talks about identity and this is the thrust of cultural studies.
Identity is therefore, always unstable, identity is forever recreated. Now, when, when you
think that you have a particular identity, you have a particular identity as a person,
as a human being, as belonging to a certain community or some region, etcetera, you feel
that you have a certain hold, a certain identity, or people look at you with, you know, through
this identity. But this, this theoretical thrusts or this
theoretical underpinning of cultural studies would tell you, that identity is as cultural
meaning, as personal meaning, is following the sign system; so, in, in, in poststructuralism,
identity is always unstable, and is forever being recreated. More about this when we look
at identity in module two as a key concept.
Therefore, identity is shifting and identity is always contingent, that is dependent on
contingent events.
Now, after Derrida we have to look at another, a French philosopher named Michel Foucault
and Foucault is central to cultural studies, particularly when this very seminal concept
in cultural studies called power, is concerned. Now, how does Foucault differ from Derrida?
Foucault says, now this is very important, please look at this sentence, Foucault says
that well, meaning is not to be seen in terms of a chain of eternal deferrals. Foucault
would perhaps hold that it is, it is a futile exercise, its meaning is seen as, you know,
something that is eternally deferred, eternally, you know, ungraspable; there is no point really
in continuing a sort of ad nauseam, you know, or ad infinitum; it does not lead us anywhere.
Well, we may accept that feature of meaning, but he says, it is more important to see,
to look at, sorry, to look at the regulation of meaning. And Foucault drew our attention
to this other aspect of meaning by saying, this meaning is regulated by this word, look
at this slide here please, meaning is regulated by power. Let us see how?
As I said, you, power is deeply connected to knowledge; in fact, we will always learn
that knowledge is power, knowledge is going to give you power, but how is this power-knowledge
relationship looked at in cultural studies, theoretical lenses, so to speak?
Foucault says that every discourse, a discourse, we looked at it very briefly and I am going
to look at it again in module two as a key concept, a discourse is a regulated way of
speaking about anything; a discourse, well, what do we have? We have eight letters, let
us combine and form, form words, words combine and form sentences and sentences combine to
form discourses. So, Foucault held that discourse is not innocent,
discourse is not to be taken at face value, discourse he held, is a, is a way, it is a
regulated way of speaking about something. For instance, let us look at the topic man;
let us look at the concept man. Foucault would say that there are several
discourses, there are several discourses which are going to talk about man or say *** Sapiens
or human nature, for if you will. Every discourse is going to talk about man within its regulated
way of speaking. Number one, religion; religion, he says, religion would give you a certain
picture of man. For instance, religion may say, man is made in the image of God or religion
may say that man is a fallen angel. Science is also going to talk about man from
within its discourses; biology for instance, is going to talk about man as a complex organism.
Psychiatry again, is going to talk about man in within its own discourses, within its own
premises, within its, within its own axioms. Law is going to look at man in a different
sort of a way and economics through its theories, through its discourses. It is a regulated
way of speaking; it is going to talk about man in different ways. So, the point here
is whichever discourse, and remember we are talking about power, whichever discourse is
powerful, so to speak, will sort of, will lead people to look at any topic, any subject
or matter of discussion, anything through its practices and it is going to sort of,
change people to speak in that regulated sort of way.
So, all of us speak from certain discourses and according to Foucault, really, there is
no escaping discourse.
So, discourse or knowledge, and power that is knowledge, again knowledge and power, combine
to do what? They combine to create and control us as subjects.
Subject again, subjectivity is, will be my next lecture which is lecture 1 in module
2. Suffice it is for here to simply note, that Foucault held that discourse in the form
of knowledge and power; they create and control us as subjects and this is, again, the realizing
or acknowledging the political nature of power and knowledge.
Therefore, the subject that is you and I, the subject is really in the ultimate analysis,
is an effect of discourse. Man, seen in a religious sort of a way, is
not really what man is, or man seen from an economics point of a view, is not exactly
the totality of what man is, within these two discourses. So, religion or economics,
man is an effect; it is a result, so to speak, of our looking at man through the discourse
of either religion, or economics. So, the subject you and I, are really the effect of
discourse, and this is instantiated or established by language, you know, so which is seminal
to the structuralist and poststructuralist theories and practice.
Both, language and practice bring about this, you know, bring about construction of the
subject as an effect of discourse.
So, therefore, discourse is the power to name, right? Names, labels, explanations, definitions,
everything come from discourse and the, and through the power to name, discourse is given
or discourse has the ability to create a subject. There is no, nothing ontologically, which
is our subjectivity; our subjectivity is a creation by discourse.
So, in same way, therefore, culture, which as in we had discussed the maps of meaning,
culture is also shifting, culture is also provisional in the sense, that the maps of
meaning - they achieve a temporary, look at the slide here please, achieve a temporary
stability through discursive practices. Recall what Pramod Nayar said in that quotation just
a while ago, that there is always a temporary meaning. So, cultures too, like our subjectivities,
they have a temporary stability through discursive practices.
So, again from Barker, we will quickly look at the, his words and, like its predecessor,
that is, structuralism, poststructuralism is anti-humanist.
Now remember we had said that to be, sorry, anti-humanist is not to be against human beings,
nor is it to, nor is it not holding a humanitarian values; anti-humanist is simply a philosophic
stance or a stance in the history of ideas, when you hold that the human is not the center
of reference. Therefore, like its predecessor, structuralism, poststructuralism is anti-humanist
in its decentering of the unified, coherent, human subject, as the origin of stable meanings.
If there is no, in the whole is, if, you know, manage only an effect of various discourses
and every discourse is partial, then he cannot be the center of reference or she cannot be
the center of reference, the point of reference and is not the originator of stable meanings.
Second, there are no stable meanings. Later of course, Focault decided not to leave us
with this sort of, maybe, you feel it is really quite a dark picture as he says later, in
later works, that there is you know, we do, do self-construct ourselves, our subjectivities
in the sense, that we can reflect on them and we can reinvent ourselves.
So, we are not just slaves like, remember Richard Dawkins in the essay on memetics;
similarly, here we are not, he said that we are not slaves of our genes and memes, we
have foresight, we have true altruism. Almost in a similar manner, Focault though
of course in a different domain, he says that our subjectivities can be reflected upon and
our subjectivities can be even reinvented.
Similarly, Richard Rorty, also another philosopher, comes away from such a dark picture and he
says, well, we should take the pragmatic path. He says that we, we should live in the knowledge
of plurality, we should understand that we can use a variety of languages for a variety
of practices. And therefore, it would, to adopt such a pluralist
approach and to accept the fact that we have live in, you know, we use different sorts
of languages for different practices, which is not a bad thing. It does not really make
us seem so passive after all passive constructs.
A related topic here is, I quickly look at it and I look at it elsewhere again, is postmodernism
because the poststructuralism postmodernism are so closely related, which is, postmodernism
is a reaction like poststructuralism, which it is structuralism. Postmodernism is a reaction
to modernism and at the same time as some hold, it is also a continuation of the modernist
project.
Just one or two names here, one is another French philosopher named Lyotard who talking
about, you know, the contemporary world says, that knowledge has, which was problematised
in poststructuralism, knowledge is, could be today's seen because of the information
boom, the knowledge is simply data and we see here in the postmodern situation, the
informatisation of knowledge. If it is a certain surface quality, which
we will talk about just in a while, and this has led to a crisis, crisis in the humanities
and social science. The very fact that knowledge is information, this is led to a crisis in
the humanities and social sciences in the form of an invalidation of objective truth,
and the rejection of meta or grand narratives. This, you know, grand narratives for instance,
religion is a grand narrative. Postmodernist would hold Marxism, you know, at least, doctrine
in a Marxism or rather, historical materialism and understanding of history through the materialist
school as a grand narrative, where they have problems with this, because the grand narrative
seem to be telling us and there is an objective truth, which has problematised both, in poststructuralism
and postmodernism. And look at this last point here, he says
that this leads to a condition of vertigo, and what is vertigo? Vertigo is a condition
in which you know, is condition in which you know, you feel that the world is spinning,
you feel, you, it is a condition, it is confusing, it is a situation in which you probably feel
that it is a chaotic situation, something that makes you feel giddy almost in a cultural
sort of way.
Therefore, the thrust is on, you know, from meta-narratives to micro-narratives. If you
do not have truth with a capital T, and I would like to quickly bring in each said,
that truth is nothing but a mobile arming of metaphors and meta-narratives. So, we should
settle from micro-narratives; instead of a global regime, we should settle for a local
regime. Now this, this, this last point were local
regimes and the understanding and what should I say, the recognition of local knowledge,
of local regimes is something that I will take up, and it is a very important part of
cultural studies.
Now, Barker, here again, Barker says that the concept of postmodernism may therefore,
be comprehended thus: it is a cultural style marked by intertextuality, irony, pastiche,
genre blurring and bricolage. There is no clear cut one-dimensional representation of
anything. All these intertextuality, bricolage, genre
blurring, all the blurring are involved in representation, precisely in order to, to
make the points, that there are a plurality of representations and any one representation,
of any event, any person, any subject, any object is essentially an act of power.
In order to, you know, get around this problem, you know, plurality of meaning; so, plurality
of representations is preferred in poststructuralism.
Therefore, intertextuality, a collage kind of technique and a certain self-consciousness
or self-reflexivity, these are what mark postmodernism.
Another figure here, which I will come to, I am just introducing him to you. Here, I
come to him when I talk about virtual culture, is Jean Baudrillard and his work on signs
and his very important term, simulation. He says that reality today is really a virtuality.
The whole thing moves on the crux of appearance versus reality; so, more about this is just
to say, that he is somebody who will come up in our discussion.
But simulation is, you could say, ironically, the real thing rather than reality, as we
understand it. Therefore, postmodernism is well, it is criticized by many as a culture
that is depthless because we go for surfaces. Remember you are information and knowledge
is information, knowledge is data , sorry I am sorry, both, as signs and simulations
and not reality, as we understand it. So, postmodernism is often called, a depthless
culture and life without commitment. If you are always in, you know, if you, with the
belief or in the belief or in the belief system, rather where everything is provisional, everything
is an effect of, is an effect of discourse or everything is, is virtual, is appearance
and not reality, then it is very difficult to lead a life of commitment and in this sense
it is diametrically also opposite Marxism. So, on the one hand we have the grand narrative,
a life of commitment, of practice, of remember, Marx changing the world, not simply interpreting
it. On this side you have interpretation; you have the impossibility, so to speak, of
commitment when the maps of meaning are changing every time.
When meaning itself is deferred endlessly and everything is an act of power, then this
is not seen as possible. This is a problematic issue and I shall be coming to it, in, later
in other lectures.
So, well, let us go in for the discussion, and what is our first question here? Our first
question could be something like, how are structuralism and poststructuralism related?
Structuralism and poststructuralism are related in the sense, a, in a, in a temporal sort
of way, as something coming after structuralism. Poststructuralism is a continuation of structuralism
in time, not only in time, well, it also contains within it so many of the seminal, seminal,
to say, seminal points in structuralism. And at the same time, it is a critique, that is,
it lays there, it lays there at the theoretical premises of structuralism, in a bid to show
that there is something in structuralism, which is, which somehow seems perhaps, to
be a neat understanding of something, a neat understanding of something.
As the structures are imposed by us on things, in a bid to have order, but which apparently
you know, but apparently there being no, no order, you know, there order is something
actually, imposed a true structuralism and things are really far more complex than that
in offering. What I said is a critique of structuralism and this point is furthered
by, by the of poststructuralism.
Next, well, how does, please look at this question here, how do poststructuralism view
truths? How is truth considered the whole concept, you know, understanding of truth
considered in the poststructuralist view? Well, we saw, that the answer here is - poststructuralism
looks at truth simply as a matter of interpretation, as a matter of language games and of power,
that is, poststructuralism holds, that there is no objective truth, and that truth is really
a linguistic construction and it is tied, it is tied to power in. And Foucault has a
book in fact, called power slash knowledge. So, truth is understood as these three things.
Next question, how did Derrida problematise the structuralist view of difference in language
and other sign system? Let us look at it carefully, how did Derrida
problematise difference, a key concept in structuralism; how did both, in language and
in sign system?
Well, Derrida gave us of, you know, the French term called differance, which is a combination
of two things - to differ and to defer, that is, you know, words have meaning or signs,
have meaning in through a system of difference. And because of meaning emanating only through
difference and through relations, and not meaning, not being referential, meaning is
forever deferred. Remember we saw the term pure, there are no or at the phrase, there
are no pure signifies. Every signifier leads to another signifier, there are no stable
or pure signifies, in the sign system.
Also, poststructuralism in poststructuralism; therefore, meaning is meaning in on any count,
whether it is meaning in language, whether it is meaning of a literary text, whether
it is a meaning of a play that you are watching or a film that you are watching or any cultural
event that you are watching, a cultural practice, the meaning of everything is therefore, endlessly
deferred and ultimately undiscovering it.
Then what does this mean for culture? What, what are the implications of holding such
a theory for culture? Now, if you have this question, what does this theoretical trust
mean for culture?
And the answer here would be, as far as identity is concerned, identity - therefore, following
the poststructuralist analysis of language in sign systems - it is always unstable and
forever recreated. Well, I would say, of course, I am going to talk about .
So this is really a libratory thing to say, in a sense, that identity being unstable is
something that has to be recreated by you and me, may be, over and over again. So, this
gives us a chance not to be tied to, in to aid sort of identity, we can reinvent our
self. Remember, that is a word which we use, when we talk about later Foucault; we can
reinvent ourselves through self-reflection and introspection.
Next question, what is discourse according to Foucault?
According to Foucault, discourse may be defined as a regulated way of speaking about something,
about anything for that matter, and the example that we saw was that of, you know, man and
what are the discourses? Just a few of them, really, there are so many. What are the discourses
that may grow into defining man? Religion, science, psychiatry, law and economics,
then each of these domains are really discourses and they have a regulated way of speaking;
there are rules of speaking within this discourse, you cannot move out of these ways. These discourses
have certain terminologies, they have certain terms, that you may use and you may not use
other terms here. So, discourses are of, are also impenetrable,
as one another is concerned.
Discourse is power, discourse or knowledge is power, and this creates and controls us
as subjects.
Next, are, you know, question is, explain the crisis that separates modernism from postmodernism?
What is the crisis that that led, you know, or gave rise to this new school of thought
from modernism to postmodernism? And we saw this true, Lyotard, Jean Francois Lyotard
and the answer here is the, that the crisis in the humanities and social sciences came
about with, with, with the information technology, with information and communication technology,
which gave us a picture or understanding of knowledge.
As data, knowledge as information, so a certain depths, you know, a certain depthness, if
I may say, of knowledge is taken away here and is replaced by, as you know, a sort of
surface information and this gives rise to, to an idea, you know, that there is, there
cannot be any deep truth, there cannot be any objective truth, and truth is subjective
in the sense, that truth is, you know, a matter of discourses and truth is a matter of how
a perspective, how truth is knowledge. Truth is perspective in character and we also show,
that the crisis here is also made very strong by a rejection of, you know, big stories.
A rejection of meta, meta is that it is going beyond meta or grand narratives, for instance,
we saw that religion is a grand narrative, signs is a grand narrative, Marxism is a grand
narrative. So, all these are seen, you know, as, as data, as seen as information, or seen
as provisional knowledge and partial knowledge. This gives rise to a condition or confused
sort of a cultural condition, which Lyotard calls vertiginous situation or condition of
vertigo. So, we have now come to the end of our discussion
on poststructuralism, structuralism and where we come to the end of module 1 and to do a
quick recap really, before we move on to the next module. What are the things that we looked
at in module 1? Module 1 began by talking about understanding
cultural studies, two lectures were with, you know, devoted to an understanding of the
field and in which I, I tried to bring to you certain key concepts, I just introduce
these key concepts to you and we saw that understanding cultural studies it is, well,
it is looking, looking at culture as a contested site.
Then, we looked at the scientific point of view of looking at culture and we looked at,
we began, certain theories. So, this is all, by way of introducing cultural studies to
you. So, I hope this, these lectures, ten lectures
were useful for you and we shall in the next lecture, move on to module two, which is devoted,
as I said earlier, to key concepts and the first topic we would take up is subjectivity.
Thank You.