Customer Reviews

Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For those looking to see what exactly all of this talk about Post-Structuralism is about, this is a hand, dandy place to start. (I really do give kudos to whomever thought up this series of Very Short Introductions).

Post-Structuralism looks at how language and words create our world. Rather than being a unified theory, however, post-structuralism consists of many different theories proposed by many different thinkers. All of these thinkers and their theories are gathered, for better or for worse, under the category "post-structuralism". Notable theorists are Saussure, Barthes, Lacan and Foucault (these names pop up a lot in all the various post- theories: post-structuralism, post-modernism, post-colonialism, etc.).

Belsey traces the development of literary theory up to the present and discusses various thinkers strengths and weaknesses. She also distinguishes it from Deconstruction (founded by Jacques Derrida), which is related but not the same. She includes a selection of works that she recommends people read for further understanding of the object.

Like all of the other Very Short Introductions that I have read, this one is well written, detailed and - as the title indicates - short. Whether you are the busy person who doesn't have the time to dip into more detailed introductions or the person with just some idle curiosity and a few bucks to spend, this is a great introduction.

French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's assertion that the relationship between a signifier (i.e., a word, symbol) and the signified (the phenomenon it describes) is arbitrary is the starting point for all forms of Poststructuralism. It reveals that language (and all signifying systems) actually create, rather describe, the world we live in. Consequently, all our understandings of the world, be they through culture, knowledge, or ideology, are artificial constructs. While Poststructuralists do not necessarily deny the existence of reality, they argue that ALL understandings of reality are shaped by the signifying systems through which we must experience and understand it. Their objective, therefore, is not to dissect language/symbols in order to discover an ultimate Truth, but rather to reveal how language and symbols create meaning/reality. Here, Catherine Belsey shows how these ideas inform the work of diverse thinkers such as Roland Barthes, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Zizek, and Jean-François Lyotard.

Although Poststructuralism is not necessarily political, it can been seen as "subversive" since by revealing how signifying systems create our understandings of the world, the individual learns to recognize and deconstruct the "realities" that control us. While Poststructuralism is empowering in this sense, it also has obvious shortcomings: we can no longer assert any absolutes. This leads the author to conclude that "Poststructuralism is more useful in prompting the uncertainty of questions than in delivering the finality of answers" (107).

I think this work is a very good "general" introduction to the topic. For only 107 pages, I don't think anyone could expect anything more. But, for anyone already familiar with Poststructuralism, it may seem a bit superficial.

Poststructuralism is a difficult area of study, as there are many different (sometimes conflicting) points of view and thinkers which are labelled 'poststructuralist'.

Poststructuralist thought deals with (among other things) 'signifiers' (words, symbols, actions, etc. which signify meaning), and the way in which people are controlled and defined by the kinds of signifiers their particular culture is made of. But that's just one consideration of a much more vast and varied area of study.

Catherine Belsey's introduction is useful as a departure point for further study into this intriguing discipline, although at times certain important points aren't made clearly enough, and certain poststructuralist vocabulary is not rendered as clear as it could be. Also, she gives only passing attention to arguments against poststructuralism.

However, I'd recommend this to anyone interested in the subject, with the caveat that, despite this being part of the normally lucid Very Short Introduction series, it would probably pay to read it more than once.

Poststructuralism is accepted as a fairly challenging set of concepts. I had hoped and expected that this intro would surmount the subject difficulties and offer an admittedly brief yet understandable and foundational presentation of the subject. While the book was at least adequate in satisfying my wishes, the subject presentation seemed a bit scattered and broken (is that poststructuralism?) with rather abrupt changes in direction that left me feeling that the previous train of thought had not yet been completed. I would recommend the book but with some reservations.

...and it's a mere 100-pages long. Catherine Belsey excels at any register of academic writing, and this book is no exception. Concise and clear, it is recommendable not only for students but also for Humanities teachers that wish to rewind and find a clearer way of explaining what poststructuralism is.

Poststructuralism is a critical trend mainly concerned with the philosophical consequences of Ferdinand de Saussure's thought. From this fundamental proposition, Belsey weaves a thorough, beautifully simple introduction to one of the most complex schools of critical thought in the 20th Century.

I have recommended this book to undergraduate and graduate students alike. While this book is not, of course, a complete introduction, it is more than sufficient to make the reader wish to delve deeper into poststructuralist authors.

Which in my case isn't much. Belsey writes well and clearly. Her book covers the writings of Saussure, Kristeva, Barthes, Althusser, Levi-Strauss, Foucault, Derrida, Zizek, and Lyotard all in 107 pages. (Not everyone on that list is a poststructuralist, but they are all relevant.) Each one also gets a little biographical sidebar. This book is useful if all you want is an overview. This little book also contains references, suggestions for further reading, a glossary (which contains "signifier" but not "signified"!), and an index. What do you want for a little over 8 bucks?

Poststructuralism struck me as superficial and rather obvious. We have no access to absolute reality, our "reality" is a social construction, we should creatively resist the ossified elements of our culture, and so on. And a lot of the poststructuralist ideas about language have been presented more clearly and succintly by analytic philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Quine. The problem with a short survey such as this is that you miss the playful and entertaining elements in the original works, as well as their brushes with profundity. Belsey is ready to admit this. She urges you to go to the original works, if you are interested in pursuing the ideas of the leading figures listed above. Good advice!

I found the author's presentation of Lyotard to be the most interesting. If I go any further with this, I think I would try something by him.

This book is not a balanced introduction. But I'm not so sure it is possible to present this topic in a balanced way. If it weren't for the desire to destroy or at least fundamentally alter the prevailing Western mythos, poststructuralism/postmodernism wouldn't have existed - at least not in their dominant character. On page 34 the author writes:

(p34) "Althusser's list of ISAs [Ideological State Apparatuses] includes religion, the family, the political system of elections and parties to choose from, the unions, the media, sport, literature and the arts, and, supremely, education. These institutions, while not homogeneous in their output, and not without internal conflict, sometimes bitter, have the effect of securing our conscious or unconscious consent to the way things are, by making them appear at best in our interests and at worst inevitable. Above all, they seem obvious." - Catherine Belsey

Two pages later she writes:

(p36) "Those of us who were involved in teaching in the 1970s, when Althusser's essay on the ISAs first appeared in translation, were thrilled to learn that the education system was the main ideological apparatus. This meant that, as radicals, we had work to do on our own doorstep, instead of looking slightly out of place on other people's picket lines. The argument was the schools and universities not only eject a proportion of the young prepared to take up occupations at every level of the economic structure, but in the process of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic they also provide instruction in obedience, deference, elementary psychology, the virtues of liberal democracy, how to give orders, and how to serve the community. In short, educational institutions inculcate discipline, and the self-discipline that encourages their pupils to go out into society and `work by themselves' to maintain the status quo."- Catherine Belsey

What seemed `obvious' to Catherine Belsey and her fellow radicals in the 70s is that these ISAs were oppressive and needed to be changed. In short, the prevailing Western mythos had to be replaced by a new mythos, with new values and new rules. But don't expect to find this brave new mythos in poststructuralism or postmodernism. These philosophies, or movements, or whatever one wishes to call them, are purely destructive. In his book "Postmodernism: a very Short Introduction", Christopher Butler wrote:

"The best that one can say here, and I am saying it, is that postmodernists are good critical deconstructors, and terrible constructors. They tend to leave that job to those patient liberals in their society who are still willing to attempt to sort out at least some of those differences between truth and fantasy..." - Christopher Butler, "Postmodernism: a very short introduction", 2003 (p116)

Catherine Belsey ends her short introduction by saying, "postructuralism is at once skeptical towards inherited authority and affirmative about future possibilities." (p107)

I'll be even more blunt than Christopher Butler. Poststructuralism and postmodernism, in terms of politics, is for reactionary baby boomers that want to relish the challenge of authority and thrill of revolution, while deferring the assumption of such authority (by speaking of future possibilities rather than defining a new mythos) so as not to be challenged themselves by their own methods.

But it's an excellent book, describing as clearly as possible in 107 pages, how we arrived here in limbo.

Poststructuralism is not an easy topic and one could say it can't be introduced briefly, but Catherine Belsey does it cleaver and fun.
The first chapters are most about estructuralism to settle the ground for later understanding on the topic.
Belsey uses resources and examples from everyday life and scholar themes without getting trivial.
The chapter on Derrida is very helpful to understand his terms and principal issues.

This little volumne has proven invaluable in helping me get a grasp on the complexities of post-structural philosophy. Many points of view and topics are broken down, but never watered down; the full range of the theory and its chief promoters are explained in thorough but compact detail. I highly recommend it.

If you are hoping for an even-handed assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of poststructuralism you will not find it here. Belsley's introduction is mainly a work of advocacy and, as such, undesirable for those looking for a reasonably non-partisan overview. Disappointing.