System is the declared enemy of Man
Marko Amnell
"System is the declared enemy of Man."
-- Roland Barthes
Claude L�vi-Strauss has died at the age of 100. He was
buried today.
The NYT obit is good as far as it goes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04levistrauss.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
L�vi-Strauss was one of the founders of structuralism.
It's good to recall just how crazy structuralism could get.
Barthes's dictum was not a criticism of System but a
criticism of Man! Man may think he cannot be reduced
to the System of structures that set him in place. But
structuralism asserts that this is an illusion. In reality,
human meaning consists simply of differences between
two or more elements of System of structure. It is an
apotheosis of Freud's absurd idea of a science of
subjectivity. Consciousness is a fraud; at the centre
of the human subject lurk anonymous forces of which
consciousness is ignorant. So it's a good thing that
structuralism is no longer in fashion (not that
post-structuralism is any better).
Arindam Banerjee
> "System is the declared enemy of Man."
> -- Roland Barthes
Not for the Man making his living analysing It.
> Claude Lévi-Strauss has died at the age of 100. He was
> buried today.
>
> The NYT obit is good as far as it goes.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04levistrauss.html?_r=...
>
> Lévi-Strauss was one of the founders of structuralism.
What on earth is that?
> It's good to recall just how crazy structuralism could get
> Barthes's dictum was not a criticism of System but a
> criticism of Man! Man may think he cannot be reduced
> to the System of structures that set him in place.
Man may think anything, but he'd better shut up about his thoughts if
they go against the System that feeds him. Such I find is Modern
Thinking.
But
> structuralism asserts that this is an illusion. In reality,
> human meaning consists simply of differences between
> two or more elements of System of structure.
What if no one has made any definitions commonly accepted about these
elements of System of structure? What if humans are too stupid, cowed
down, lazy, robotic etc. to find meanings in anything save those
related just to their own existences? Countless mundane
subjectivities are just that - they do not constitute meaningful
meanings, but they have been selling well when presented as Art.
It is an
> apotheosis of Freud's absurd idea of a science of
> subjectivity.
Good, someone is associating Freud with absurdity. The same
conclusion must be made for Einstein and Gandi. Few things could be
more wrong than a science of subjectivity.
> Consciousness is a fraud;
In any so-called democracy run by shadowy corrupts, who manufacture
consciousness through various cunning ways, I am afraid this has to be
true.
at the centre
> of the human subject lurk anonymous forces of which
> consciousness is ignorant.
The theist would have no hesitation about their origin. The atheist
may well be recalcitrant,
>So it's a good thing that
> structuralism is no longer in fashion (not that
> post-structuralism is any better).
I would like some definitions here, but thank you Marko for your post,
excellent as usual.
Arindam Banerjee
Marko Amnell
> On Nov 4, 7:41 am, "Marko Amnell" <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > "System is the declared enemy of Man."
> > -- Roland Barthes
>
> Not for the Man making his living analysing It.
>
> > Claude Lévi-Strauss has died at the age of 100. He was
> > buried today.
>
> > The NYT obit is good as far as it goes.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04levistrauss.html?_r=...
>
> > Lévi-Strauss was one of the founders of structuralism.
>
> What on earth is that?
It's hard to define, and with smw and Moggin
apparently gone for good from RAB, I don't
think anyone here will step forward to defend it.
But here is wikipedia's description of it:
Structuralism is an approach to the human sciences that attempts to
analyze a specific field (for instance, mythology) as a complex system
of interrelated parts. It began in linguistics with the work of
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). But many French intellectuals
perceived it to have a wider application, and the model was soon
modified and applied to other fields, such as anthropology,
psychoanalysis, literary theory and architecture. This ushered in the
dawn of structuralism as not just a method, but also an intellectual
movement that came to take existentialism's pedestal in 1960s France.
[1]
In the 1970s, it came under internal fire from critics who accused it
of being too rigid and ahistorical. However, many of structuralism's
theorists, from Michel Foucault to Jacques Lacan, continue to assert
an influence on continental philosophy, and many of the fundamental
assumptions of its critics, that is, of adherents of
poststructuralism, are but a continuation of structuralism.[1]
Structuralism isn't only applied within literary theory. There are
also structuralist theories that exist within philosophy of science,
anthropology and in sociology. According to Alison Assiter, there are
four common ideas regarding structuralism that form an 'intellectual
trend'. Firstly, the structure is what determines the position of each
element of a whole. Secondly, structuralists believe that every system
has a structure. Thirdly, structuralists are interested in
'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. And
finally structures are the 'real things' that lie beneath the surface
or the appearance of meaning
History
Structuralism appeared in academia in the second half of the 20th
century, and grew to become one of the most popular approaches in
academic fields concerned with the analysis of language, culture, and
society. The work of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning linguistics is
generally considered to be a starting point of structuralism. The term
"structuralism" itself appeared in the works of French anthropologist
Claude Lévi-Strauss, and gave rise, in France, to the "structuralist
movement," which spurred the work of such thinkers as Louis Althusser,
the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, as well as the structural Marxism of
Nicos Poulantzas. Almost all members of this so-called movement denied
that they were part of it[citation needed]. Structuralism is closely
related to semiotics. Post-structuralism attempted to distinguish
itself from the simple use of the structural method. Deconstruction
was an attempt to break with structuralistic thought. Some
intellectuals like Julia Kristeva, for example, took structuralism
(and Russian formalism) for a starting point to later become prominent
post-structuralists. Structuralism has had varying degrees of
influence in the social sciences: a great deal in the field of
sociology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
> > It's good to recall just how crazy structuralism could get
> > Barthes's dictum was not a criticism of System but a
> > criticism of Man! Man may think he cannot be reduced
> > to the System of structures that set him in place.
>
> Man may think anything, but he'd better shut up about his thoughts if
> they go against the System that feeds him. Such I find is Modern
> Thinking.
>
> But
>
> > structuralism asserts that this is an illusion. In reality,
> > human meaning consists simply of differences between
> > two or more elements of System of structure.
>
> What if no one has made any definitions commonly accepted about these
> elements of System of structure? What if humans are too stupid, cowed
> down, lazy, robotic etc. to find meanings in anything save those
> related just to their own existences? Countless mundane
> subjectivities are just that - they do not constitute meaningful
> meanings, but they have been selling well when presented as Art.
>
> It is an
>
> > apotheosis of Freud's absurd idea of a science of
> > subjectivity.
>
> Good, someone is associating Freud with absurdity. The same
> conclusion must be made for Einstein and Gandi. Few things could be
> more wrong than a science of subjectivity.
The attack on the very notion of a science of
subjectivity was my own idea.
> > Consciousness is a fraud;
>
> In any so-called democracy run by shadowy corrupts, who manufacture
> consciousness through various cunning ways, I am afraid this has to be
> true.
>
> at the centre
>
> > of the human subject lurk anonymous forces of which
> > consciousness is ignorant.
>
> The theist would have no hesitation about their origin. The atheist
> may well be recalcitrant,
>
> >So it's a good thing that
> > structuralism is no longer in fashion (not that
> > post-structuralism is any better).
And just in case you were wondering what
post-structuralism is, here is wikipedia's
description of it (although it is as difficult to
define as structuralism):
Post-structuralism encompasses the intellectual developments of
certain continental philosophers and sociologists who wrote within the
tendencies of twentieth-century French philosophy. The movement is
difficult to define or summarize, but may be broadly understood as a
body of distinct responses to structuralism (hence the prefix "post").
Many contributors, most notably Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and
Julia Kristeva, either inverted structuralist principles or set out to
reject them outright. In direct contrast to the structuralist claim of
an independent signifier superior to the signified, post-structuralism
generally views the signifier and signified as inseparable but not
united; meaning itself inheres to the play of difference.[1] Theorists
such as Roland Barthes and Jean Baudrillard merged traditional Marxian
ideas relating to capitalist exchange value (e.g. commodity fetishism)
with such novel principles, bringing into attention the relationship
between consumerism and the realm of the sign. The movement is closely
related to postmodernism. Anti-humanism, as a rejection of the
enlightenment subject, is often a central tenet. Similarly,
existential-phenomenology is of considerable influence. One could
argue that the post-structuralists might just as accurately be called
the "post-phenomenologists".[2]
Many so-called 'post-structuralist' theorists actively refused the
label. Indeed, the term came into being pejoratively through Anglo-
American academe as a means to distinguish those continental
philosophers who rejected traditional analytic standards. Further
controversy owes to the way in which these loosely-connected thinkers
tended to dispel with theories claiming to have discovered absolute
truths about the world.[3] Although such ideas generally relate only
to the metaphysical; for instance, metanarratives of assumed
historical progress (e.g. dialecticism), many commentators discredited
the movement as relativist, nihilist, or simply indulgent, to the
extreme. One must reiterate that as few have willingly accepted the
post-structuralist label, there is no single, unified manifesto.[4]
Certain contemporary movements, such as critical realism, may be
viewed as attempts to reconcile the overarching skeptical conclusions
of post-structuralism with scientific frames of enquiry.
Arindam Banerjee
"Marko Amnell" <marko....@kolumbus.fi> wrote in message
news:3fa3baf9-c96c-4745...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:15 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:41 am, "Marko Amnell" <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > "System is the declared enemy of Man."
> > -- Roland Barthes
>
> Not for the Man making his living analysing It.
>
> > buried today.
>
> > The NYT obit is good as far as it
> > goes.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/europe/04levistrauss.html?_r=...
>
>
> What on earth is that?
It's hard to define, and with smw and Moggin
apparently gone for good from RAB,
AB: Sad, so far as smw is concerned. A moggin one can take or leave;
mostly, leave.
I don't
think anyone here will step forward to defend it.
But here is wikipedia's description of it:
Structuralism is an approach to the human sciences that attempts to
analyze a specific field (for instance, mythology) as a complex system
of interrelated parts. It began in linguistics with the work of
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). But many French intellectuals
perceived it to have a wider application, and the model was soon
modified and applied to other fields, such as anthropology,
psychoanalysis, literary theory and architecture. This ushered in the
dawn of structuralism as not just a method, but also an intellectual
movement that came to take existentialism's pedestal in 1960s France.
[1]
AB: I don't see how mythology can be subject to any systematic study!
Mythology is the greatest gift to us, from our forefathers. It is a
condensation of human experience, of timeless value and undeniable quality.
It relates directly with the spiritual world, of which it offers keen
insights. Mythology is the ultimate source of all that is true, good,
beautful and worthwhile among human beings. The structure behind mythology
is elusive - it primarily relates with the group, and secondarily with the
individual, in terms of goals and proclivities. Thus a certain mythology is
subject to many interpretations and many resulting structures. Political
will determines what structure is dominant, but that is only spatial and
temporal, and thus contradictory with the timeless quality of the myth. Myth
is the ultimate inspiration for the poet - and through the poet, various
forms of Art.
In the 1970s, it came under internal fire from critics who accused it
of being too rigid and ahistorical. However, many of structuralism's
theorists, from Michel Foucault to Jacques Lacan, continue to assert
an influence on continental philosophy, and many of the fundamental
assumptions of its critics, that is, of adherents of
poststructuralism, are but a continuation of structuralism.[1]
AB: Hmm, systems analysis (or structuralism) has to do with the material
world which it abstracts into mathematical/logical/graphcial form for
various manipulations. Non-material issues have little to do with
structuralism. Like, one cannot quite relate the quantity of love or regard
one may expect to get with the quantity of gold or jewels one buys for the
target!
Structuralism isn't only applied within literary theory. There are
also structuralist theories that exist within philosophy of science,
anthropology and in sociology. According to Alison Assiter, there are
four common ideas regarding structuralism that form an 'intellectual
trend'. Firstly, the structure is what determines the position of each
element of a whole. Secondly, structuralists believe that every system
has a structure. Thirdly, structuralists are interested in
'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. And
finally structures are the 'real things' that lie beneath the surface
or the appearance of meaning
AB: Given the success of structuralism in science, engineering and medicine,
it was tempting no doubt to apply it to other fields.
History
Structuralism appeared in academia in the second half of the 20th
century, and grew to become one of the most popular approaches in
academic fields concerned with the analysis of language, culture, and
society. The work of Ferdinand de Saussure concerning linguistics is
generally considered to be a starting point of structuralism. The term
"structuralism" itself appeared in the works of French anthropologist
Claude L�vi-Strauss, and gave rise, in France, to the "structuralist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism
AB: Terrific!
AB: Post-structuralism looks like anti-technology, and that is also a big
mistake. True it is that technology has led to many evils, such as
pollution, wiping out wildlife and greenery, robotisation of humans, great
economic divisions, parasitical elitism, a counteracting bigotry, violence
on an unimaginable scale... horrible as these are, there is no going back to
the stone age or notions of gandian bucolic bliss. There has to be strong
and inviolable moral basis to the use of technology, and only proper
communication on a purely free, open and democratic basis can ensure this.
Thus, if this happens, wrong notions like the conservation of energy can be
thrown out, and embarrassing e=mcc stuff properly shunned. Then the modern
evils will be wiped out, with good use of technology. What has been
destroyed, can again be rebuilt.
Many so-called 'post-structuralist' theorists actively refused the
label. Indeed, the term came into being pejoratively through Anglo-
American academe as a means to distinguish those continental
philosophers who rejected traditional analytic standards. Further
controversy owes to the way in which these loosely-connected thinkers
tended to dispel with theories claiming to have discovered absolute
truths about the world.[3] Although such ideas generally relate only
to the metaphysical; for instance, metanarratives of assumed
historical progress (e.g. dialecticism), many commentators discredited
the movement as relativist, nihilist, or simply indulgent, to the
extreme. One must reiterate that as few have willingly accepted the
post-structuralist label, there is no single, unified manifesto.[4]
Certain contemporary movements, such as critical realism, may be
viewed as attempts to reconcile the overarching skeptical conclusions
of post-structuralism with scientific frames of enquiry.
AB: Looks like structuralists and post-s types are about the same thing - we
will talk this and gesture that, what wastes the most time and energy is
what's the most intellectual! Fortuntely, the Indian world-view to which I
subscribe is so very different.
Catawumpus
> "System is the declared enemy of Man."
> -- Roland Barthes ...
> It's good to recall just how crazy structuralism could get.
> Barthes's dictum was not a criticism of System but a
> criticism of Man!
Really! What could be more nuts than criticizing Man! He
can only be worshipped and adored.
> Man may think he cannot be reduced
> to the System of structures that set him in place. But
> structuralism asserts that this is an illusion. In reality,
> human meaning consists simply of differences between
> two or more elements of System of structure. It is an
> apotheosis of Freud's absurd idea of a science of
> subjectivity. Consciousness is a fraud; at the centre
> of the human subject lurk anonymous forces of which
> consciousness is ignorant. So it's a good thing that
> structuralism is no longer in fashion (not that
> post-structuralism is any better).
So true. The idea human consciousness holds any ignorance
of itself is pure heresy.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com>: wrote:
>>> L�vi-Strauss was one of the founders of structuralism.
>> What on earth is that?
> It's hard to define, and with smw and Moggin
> apparently gone for good from RAB, I don't
> think anyone here will step forward to defend it.
A misunderstanding. My interest was in post-structuralism
-- structuralism's opposite -- and I'd say the same was
largely true for smw, although she had a more catholic attitude.
> But here is wikipedia's description of it ...
> And just in case you were wondering what
> post-structuralism is, here is wikipedia's
> description ...
Wikipediocy. Those are sub-literate articles that confuse
"assert" with "exert," "dispel" with "dispense," and
"post-structuralism" with "post-modernism." Inevitable Arindam
fell for them, but why would you.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
> > Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>: wrote:
> >>> Lévi-Strauss was one of the founders of structuralism.
> >> What on earth is that?
> > It's hard to define, and with smw and Moggin
> > apparently gone for good from RAB, I don't
> > think anyone here will step forward to defend it.
>
> A misunderstanding. My interest was in post-structuralism
> -- structuralism's opposite -- and I'd say the same was
> largely true for smw, although she had a more catholic attitude.
My first exposure to post-structuralism was reading about
one-third of Deleuze and Guattari's _A Thousand Plateaus_
in the autumn of 1989. I liked certain aspects of it, such as
the idea of thought as a "rhizome", nomadic thought, or
bodies without organs. I suppose it depends on which
post-structualist you talk to, but the ones I spoke to back
then (it seems an age ago) were muddle-headed and
trendy red-green lit crit or fine art undergrads for whom
post-structuralism was yet another tool to use in their
opposition to capitalism. Rationality (including all that
icky math stuff I studied) was a regime to oppress the
proletariat, women, and the Third World. I realize that
there is more to post-structuralism than this, but given
that it was created by former French revolutionary
communists following the failure of 1968, the trendy
undergrads were at least on the right track.
> > But here is wikipedia's description of it ...
> > And just in case you were wondering what
> > post-structuralism is, here is wikipedia's
> > description ...
>
> Wikipediocy. Those are sub-literate articles that confuse
> "assert" with "exert," "dispel" with "dispense," and
> "post-structuralism" with "post-modernism." Inevitable Arindam
> fell for them, but why would you.
I didn't "fall for them." I was helpfully posting some
brief summaries for an engineer with no familiarity
with the subject. Care to offer better definitions of
"structuralism" or "post-structualism"?
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
> > -- Roland Barthes ...
> > It's good to recall just how crazy structuralism could get.
> > Barthes's dictum was not a criticism of System but a
> > criticism of Man!
>
> Really! What could be more nuts than criticizing Man!
> He can only be worshipped and adored.
Systems of the world unite?
> > Man may think he cannot be reduced
> > to the System of structures that set him in place. But
> > structuralism asserts that this is an illusion. In reality,
> > human meaning consists simply of differences between
> > two or more elements of System of structure. It is an
> > apotheosis of Freud's absurd idea of a science of
> > subjectivity. Consciousness is a fraud; at the centre
> > of the human subject lurk anonymous forces of which
> > consciousness is ignorant. So it's a good thing that
> > structuralism is no longer in fashion (not that
> > post-structuralism is any better).
>
> So true. The idea human consciousness holds any
> ignorance of itself is pure heresy.
"Any ignorance"? Funny how after a long absence
from Usenet you instantly slip back into your old
specious methods of argumentation.
Catawumpus
> My first exposure to post-structuralism was reading about
> one-third of Deleuze and Guattari's _A Thousand Plateaus_
> in the autumn of 1989. I liked certain aspects of it, such as
> the idea of thought as a "rhizome", nomadic thought, or
> bodies without organs. I suppose it depends on which
> post-structualist you talk to, but the ones I spoke to back
> then (it seems an age ago) were muddle-headed and
> trendy red-green lit crit or fine art undergrads for whom
> post-structuralism was yet another tool to use in their
> opposition to capitalism. Rationality (including all that
> icky math stuff I studied) was a regime to oppress the
> proletariat, women, and the Third World. I realize that
> there is more to post-structuralism than this, but given
> that it was created by former French revolutionary
> communists following the failure of 1968, the trendy
> undergrads were at least on the right track.
Ungiven. Post-structuralism pre-dates May '68, going back
at least to the famous Hopkins "Languages of Criticism"
conference in '66, where Derrida delivered "Structure, Sign and
Play" -- also the place he first met de Man, beginning de
Man's move from phenomenology to deconstruction. Foucault came
out with _The Order Of Things_ (including its attack on the
Party) in 1966. D's _Of Grammatology_, _Writing and Difference_
and _Speech and Phenomena_ were published in 1967. Etc.
Post-structuralism was already around before the events you say
it followed.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> �The idea human consciousness holds any
>> ignorance of itself is pure heresy.
> "Any ignorance"? Funny how after a long absence
> from Usenet you instantly slip back into your old
> specious methods of argumentation.
Funny how you're still unable to make a cogent reply: the
same problem you had back in the olden days, when you
depended on baseless attacks like the above to stand in for the
arguments you couldn't come up with.
Anyway, you're aghast at the idea structuralism criticizes
Man, and you object in particular to the notion that the
"human subject" is unaware of "anonymous forces" lurking within.
If you put Man beyond questioning, then it makes sense you
dislike the idea that he isn't master in his own house (in
Freud's words) and feel offended by sorts of thinking, like
structuralism and post-structuralism, which don't give what you
believe is his due.
If that isn't your position, then I must have
misunderstood -- but you've got a truckload of clarifying to do.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
>
Why stop there? You could point to Umberto Eco's
_The Open Work_, published in 1962, as post-structuralist.
But a few publications or lectures are not sufficient
evidence to show that an intellectual movement
called "post-structuralism" already exited. It's clear that
the movement only crystallized and became established
after May, 1968 and partially as a reaction to the
failure of those protests to change French society.
The fact that a few works now called post-structuralist
pre-date 1968 in no way disproves that assertion.
Ask yourself if the publication of Eco's book in 1962
proves that post-structuralism already existed in
1962 and you will see that I am right.
I noticed you ducked the question of what are
proper definitions of "structuralism" and
"post-structuralism", after criticizing the
ones I offered. I wonder why?
Marko Amnell
> Anyway, you're aghast at the idea structuralism criticizes
> Man, and you object in particular to the notion that the
> "human subject" is unaware of "anonymous forces" lurking
> within.
No one is aghast at anything. Like any
reasonable person, I am simply amused
by Roland Barthes's ridiculous apotheosis
of the System (over human subjectivity) in
his dictum "System is the declared enemy
of Man." Freud's pseudo-science of the
"forces" of the subconscious (modelled
after Newtonian forces in physics) was
a first step in this direction.
Catawumpus
>> � � � ... �Post-structuralism pre-dates May '68, going back
>> at least to the famous Hopkins "Languages of Criticism"
>> conference in '66, where Derrida delivered "Structure, Sign and
>> Play" -- also the place he first met de Man, beginning de
>> Man's move from phenomenology to deconstruction. �Foucault came
>> out with _The Order Of Things_ (including its attack on the
>> Party) in 1966. �D's _Of Grammatology_, _Writing and Difference_
>> and _Speech and Phenomena_ were published in 1967. �Etc. �
>> Post-structuralism was already around before the events you say
>> it followed.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
> Why stop there? You could point to Umberto Eco's
> _The Open Work_, published in 1962, as post-structuralist.
> But a few publications or lectures are not sufficient
> evidence to show that an intellectual movement
> called "post-structuralism" already exited. It's clear that
> the movement only crystallized and became established
> after May, 1968 and partially as a reaction to the
> failure of those protests to change French society.
> The fact that a few works now called post-structuralist
> pre-date 1968 in no way disproves that assertion.
Since post-structuralist writings -- including several big
items like _Of Grammatology_ and _The Order Of Things_ -- go
back to 1966-67 (or maybe before), to state that "it was
created by former French revolutionary communists following the
failure of 1968" is a mistake, as you concede by shifting
from an assertion about when it was _created_ to one about when
it "became established."
> Ask yourself if the publication of Eco's book in 1962
> proves that post-structuralism already existed in
> 1962 and you will see that I am right.
I haven't read it, so I can't say -- but my examples above
show you're wrong.
> I noticed you ducked the question of what are
> proper definitions of "structuralism" and
> "post-structuralism", after criticizing the
> ones I offered. I wonder why?
I politely skipped over your ridiculous excuse for pasting
in crap from Wikipedia. You said, "I was helpfully posting
some brief summaries for an engineer with no familiarity
with the subject." But how is supplying illiterate, uninformed
blathering from what even you call an unreliable source a
helpful thing to do? Do you help thirsty people by giving them
dirty water?
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> No one is aghast at anything. Like any
> reasonable person, I am simply amused
> by Roland Barthes's ridiculous apotheosis
> of the System (over human subjectivity) in
> his dictum "System is the declared enemy
> of Man."
So you're either shocked or amused by the idea that Man is
susceptible to criticism.
> Freud's pseudo-science of the
> "forces" of the subconscious (modelled
> after Newtonian forces in physics) was
> a first step in this direction.
Well, no. Freud had an immediate predecessor in Nietzsche.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
> > reasonable person, I am simply amused
> > by Roland Barthes's ridiculous apotheosis
> > of the System (over human subjectivity) in
> > his dictum "System is the declared enemy
> > of Man."
>
> So you're either shocked or amused by the idea
> that Man is susceptible to criticism.
No, I am amused by "Roland Barthes's ridiculous
apotheosis of the System" exactly as I said
above. If you could read, you would have
known that. Structuralism is silly because it
takes certain out-of-date ideas about
systematic linguistics from Ferdinand de Saussure
and applies them to all aspects of society
and human nature, trying desperately to
force everything to fit this notion of System.
Have you read Saussure? I have, and once
you read some of his writings, you see that
everything in structuralism follows from what
he said.
Marko Amnell
> Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
>
> >> ... Post-structuralism pre-dates May '68, going back
> >> at least to the famous Hopkins "Languages of Criticism"
> >> conference in '66, where Derrida delivered "Structure, Sign and
> >> Play" -- also the place he first met de Man, beginning de
> >> Man's move from phenomenology to deconstruction. Foucault came
> >> out with _The Order Of Things_ (including its attack on the
> >> Party) in 1966. D's _Of Grammatology_, _Writing and Difference_
> >> and _Speech and Phenomena_ were published in 1967. Etc.
> >> Post-structuralism was already around before the events you say
> >> it followed.
>
Then how about offering some clean water?
Please define "structuralism" and "post-
structuralism". It's the least you can do if you
criticize the definitions I posted. You say you
are interested in post-structuralism. ("My interest
was in post-structuralism -- structuralism's
opposite -- and I'd say the same was largely
true for smw..."). Then you certainly should be
able to define what it is you are interested in.
Catawumpus
>>> No one is aghast at anything. Like any
>>> reasonable person, I am simply amused
>>> by Roland Barthes's ridiculous apotheosis
>>> of the System (over human subjectivity) in
>>> his dictum "System is the declared enemy
>>> of Man."
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> � � �So you're either shocked or amused by the idea that Man is
>> susceptible to criticism.
Marko:
> No, I am amused by "Roland Barthes's ridiculous
> apotheosis of the System" exactly as I said
> above. If you could read, you would have
> known that. Structuralism is silly because it
> takes certain out-of-date ideas about
> systematic linguistics from Ferdinand de Saussure
> and applies them to all aspects of society
> and human nature, trying desperately to
> force everything to fit this notion of System.
Reading your posts shows you quietly but consistently back
away from your announced positions: an old habit you
unfortunately haven't dropped. You began by saying Barthes was
nuts to criticize Man; now you've moved to the above. You
claimed post-structuralism "was created by former French
revolutionary communists following the failure of 1968" but you
pretended you were only talking about when it "became
established" after I corrected you. And your categorical
assertion that neo-Platonism and Aristotle are "missing
completely in the case of Islam" turned into a fine distinction
between "Islamic culture" and "Islamic theology" when Jack
Campin and I pointed out some of what you were missing. Thanks
for showing how reason works.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Then how about offering some clean water?
Already did: I unmuddied things by correcting your notion
post-structuralism dates from after May '68.
> Please define "structuralism" and "post-
> structuralism". It's the least you can do if you
> criticize the definitions I posted. You say you
> are interested in post-structuralism. ("My interest
> was in post-structuralism -- structuralism's
> opposite -- and I'd say the same was largely
> true for smw..."). Then you certainly should be
> able to define what it is you are interested in.
What a string of non sequiturs. Guess that's why you call
yourself an Enlightenment fundie.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
In other words, you are unable to even define what
"post-structuralism" is, even though you claim
to support it. You vehemently criticize the Wikipedia
definition but when asked to provide a better
definition you cannot offer anything at all. There
remain two alternatives. Either your failure to define
"post-structuralism" is due to your own intellectual
and verbal shortcomings, or it is a result of the
fact that "post-structuralism" is so confused and
contradictory that it cannot be properly defined.
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
>
> Already did: I unmuddied things by correcting your notion
> post-structuralism dates from after May '68.
You didn't. You have not even defined
what post-structuralism is. All you did
was to list some random books by
random authors. The books you listed
were not ones that deal mainly with
politics. Why would anyone think those
are post-structuralist works? You have
not even told us what you think post-
structuralism is.
In case you are interested, the works
I had in mind were ones like _Pour une
critique de l'économie politique du signe_
by Jean Baudrillard, which was published
in 1972. I read part of it in French a few
years ago and still have the book. It is
fairly obvious that the move toward an
analysis of consumer society in terms
of semiotics was partly a result of the
failure of the traditional Marxist revolutionary
strategy in 1968. Put crudely, traditional
Marxist theory failed in 1968 so Baudrillard
decided to move beyond the analysis of
exchange value in _Capital_ and to
analyse consumer society in terms of signs.
Catawumpus
>>�I unmuddied things by correcting your notion post-structuralism
>> dates from after May '68.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
> You didn't.
Sure did. And you've granted my point by quietly revising
your claim, shifting from the assertion post-structuralism
"was created by former French revolutionary communists
following the failure of 1968" to one about the time it "became
established."
> You have not even defined
> what post-structuralism is. All you did
> was to list some random books by
> random authors. The books you listed
> were not ones that deal mainly with
> politics. Why would anyone think those
> are post-structuralist works? You have
> not even told us what you think post-
> structuralism is.
Which is it, Marko: you didn't read the Wikipedia article
you posted or you offered it as a 'helpful summary' even
though you didn't believe what it said? Think carefully before
you reply.
> In case you are interested, the works
> I had in mind were ones like _Pour une
> critique de l'�conomie politique du signe_
> by Jean Baudrillard, which was published
> in 1972. I read part of it in French a few
> years ago and still have the book. It is
> fairly obvious that the move toward an
> analysis of consumer society in terms
> of semiotics was partly a result of the
> failure of the traditional Marxist revolutionary
> strategy in 1968. Put crudely, traditional
> Marxist theory failed in 1968 so Baudrillard
> decided to move beyond the analysis of
> exchange value in _Capital_ and to
> analyse consumer society in terms of signs.
Right you are. It certainly isn't like Barthes published
_Mythologies_ in 1957.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> � � �What a string of non sequiturs. �Guess that's why you call
>> yourself an Enlightenment fundie.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
> In other words, you are unable to even define what
> "post-structuralism" is, even though you claim
> to support it. You vehemently criticize the Wikipedia
> definition but when asked to provide a better
> definition you cannot offer anything at all. There
> remain two alternatives. Either your failure to define
> "post-structuralism" is due to your own intellectual
> and verbal shortcomings, or it is a result of the
> fact that "post-structuralism" is so confused and
> contradictory that it cannot be properly defined.
Somehow it seems that God is more "bound by human concepts
of rationality" than you are. Or then yours might be the
human, all-too-human kind. Come to think of it, his may belong
in the same category.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> >> dates from after May '68.
>
>
> > You didn't.
>
> Sure did. And you've granted my point by quietly revising
> your claim, shifting from the assertion post-structuralism
> "was created by former French revolutionary communists
> following the failure of 1968" to one about the time it "became
> established."
>
> > You have not even defined
> > what post-structuralism is. All you did
> > was to list some random books by
> > random authors. The books you listed
> > were not ones that deal mainly with
> > politics. Why would anyone think those
> > are post-structuralist works? You have
> > not even told us what you think post-
> > structuralism is.
>
> Which is it, Marko: you didn't read the Wikipedia article
> you posted or you offered it as a 'helpful summary' even
> though you didn't believe what it said? Think carefully before
> you reply.
>
> > In case you are interested, the works
> > I had in mind were ones like _Pour une
> > by Jean Baudrillard, which was published
> > in 1972. I read part of it in French a few
> > years ago and still have the book. It is
> > fairly obvious that the move toward an
> > analysis of consumer society in terms
> > of semiotics was partly a result of the
> > failure of the traditional Marxist revolutionary
> > strategy in 1968. Put crudely, traditional
> > Marxist theory failed in 1968 so Baudrillard
> > decided to move beyond the analysis of
> > exchange value in _Capital_ and to
> > analyse consumer society in terms of signs.
>
> Right you are. It certainly isn't like Barthes published
> _Mythologies_ in 1957.
You really are an odd sort of cretin.
You don't even understand the origins
of the philosophy you espouse.
Check out e.g.
"The birth of post-structuralism is considered
to have occurred in 1968 [...]
In the wake of May 1968, life changed. The
positivist nature of structuralism no longer held
any weight with many thinkers. Instead post-
structuralism focused on deconstruction with
a political slant, interrogating how external forces
like class, gender, ethnicity and history conceal
existing power structures."
http://peterzuurbier.blogspot.com/2010/02/structuralism-poststructuralism-post.html
"Particularly connected with the 1968 Paris
student uprisings, post-structuralism questioned
whether there are deep structures in any sense,
or whether the idea of deep structures is more
of a construct to comfort us, rather than being
essential or ‘true’ in any way."
http://sharedmeaning.com/cms/what-we-think/theoretical-underpinnings/post-structuralism/
I could find numerous other writers
saying the same thing...
Catawumpus
> You really are an odd sort of cretin. You don't even
> understand the origins of the philosophy you espouse.
In other words, I corrected your notion post-structuralism
was created sometime after May '68.
> Check out e.g.
> "The birth of post-structuralism is considered
> to have occurred in 1968 [...]
> In the wake of May 1968, life changed. The
> positivist nature of structuralism no longer held
> any weight with many thinkers. Instead post-
> structuralism focused on deconstruction with
> a political slant, interrogating how external forces
> like class, gender, ethnicity and history conceal
> existing power structures."
> http://peterzuurbier.blogspot.com/2010/02/structuralism-poststructuralism-post.html
> "Particularly connected with the 1968 Paris
> student uprisings, post-structuralism questioned
> whether there are deep structures in any sense,
> or whether the idea of deep structures is more
> of a construct to comfort us, rather than being
> essential or �true� in any way."
> http://sharedmeaning.com/cms/what-we-think/theoretical-underpinnings/post-structuralism/
> I could find numerous other writers saying the same thing...
And saying makes it so? You actually believe that quoting
opinions you found posted on on some random websites is
evidence for your claims. Hilarious. Even funnier is that, on
inspection, they don't really support you. "Particularly
connected with the 1968 Paris student uprisings" says alot less
than your assertion that post-structuralism was created only
after the 'events of May.' "The birth of post-structuralism is
considered to have occurred in 1968" does much better in
echoing your mistake, but that article calls Derrida -- who you
bizarrely tried to dismiss -- "the most impotant figure in
poststructural analysis." And guess what? Derrida's work goes
back several years _before_ then. To repeat, he delivered
"Structure, Sign, and Play" at Johns Hopkins in 1966. _Writing
and Difference_, _Of Grammatology_, and _Speech and
Phenomena_ were all published in '67 and include writings early
as 1963 (viz. the comments on structuralism in "Force and
Signification"). So much for the idea post-structuralism began
in reply to the '68 ruckus.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi>:
>
> > understand the origins of the philosophy you espouse.
>
> In other words, I corrected your notion post-structuralism
> was created sometime after May '68.
>
> > Check out e.g.
> > "The birth of post-structuralism is considered
> > to have occurred in 1968 [...]
> > In the wake of May 1968, life changed. The
> > positivist nature of structuralism no longer held
> > any weight with many thinkers. Instead post-
> > structuralism focused on deconstruction with
> > a political slant, interrogating how external forces
> > like class, gender, ethnicity and history conceal
> > existing power structures."
> > "Particularly connected with the 1968 Paris
> > student uprisings, post-structuralism questioned
> > whether there are deep structures in any sense,
> > or whether the idea of deep structures is more
> > of a construct to comfort us, rather than being
> >http://sharedmeaning.com/cms/what-we-think/theoretical-underpinnings/...
> > I could find numerous other writers saying the same thing...
>
> And saying makes it so? You actually believe that quoting
> opinions you found posted on on some random websites is
> evidence for your claims. Hilarious. Even funnier is that, on
> inspection, they don't really support you. "Particularly
> connected with the 1968 Paris student uprisings" says alot less
> than your assertion that post-structuralism was created only
> after the 'events of May.' "The birth of post-structuralism is
> considered to have occurred in 1968" does much better in
> echoing your mistake, but that article calls Derrida -- who you
> bizarrely tried to dismiss
I didn't try to dismiss him. I said that *you* have given
us no reasons for believing that he is a post-structuralist
because you refuse to tell us what you think post-
structuralism is.
> -- "the most impotant figure in
> poststructural analysis." And guess what? Derrida's work goes
> back several years _before_ then. To repeat, he delivered
> "Structure, Sign, and Play" at Johns Hopkins in 1966. _Writing
> and Difference_, _Of Grammatology_, and _Speech and
> Phenomena_ were all published in '67 and include writings early
> as 1963 (viz. the comments on structuralism in "Force and
> Signification"). So much for the idea post-structuralism began
> in reply to the '68 ruckus.
Look, the question of when an intellectual movement
such as post-structuralism is born is a question of
interpretation. Simply pointing to a few isolated pieces
of writing or lectures prior to 1968 is not conclusive
proof that post-structuralism existed as an intellectual
movement prior to 1968. I quoted two writers who, like
me, see 1968 as a key element in the origins of post-
structuralism. They give reasons for why they think so.
You simply igored their reasons. It seems you are
completely unaware that the political events of May 1968
and the birth of post-structuralism are connected.
Marko Amnell
Here are two more writers who see May 1968
as a key event in the birth of post-structuralism.
"Post-structuralism was a product of that blend of
euphoria and disillusionment, liberation and dissipation,
carnival and catastrophe, which was 1968. Unable to
break the structures of state power, post-structuralism
found it possible instead to break the structures of language..."
-- Terry Eagleton
http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/foucault.html
"In the field of philosophy the post-structuralist wave
struck Paris after 1968 and produced 'a rage against
humanism and the Enlightenment legacy.'"
http://www.angelfire.com/ar/corei/foucault.html
Professor Eagleton is certainly a greater authority on the
subject than you are. So it is not a case of me having
to prove that May 1968 was a key event in the birth
of post-structuralism. It is the other way around.
You, a nobody compared to academic authorities
like Professor Eagleton, must prove that May 1968
was not a key event in the birth of post-structuralism.
Publication dates of a few works by Derrida won't
do the trick.
Catawumpus
>> "Particularly
>> connected with the 1968 Paris student uprisings" says alot less
>> than your assertion that post-structuralism was created only
>> after the 'events of May.' �"The birth of post-structuralism is
>> considered to have occurred in 1968" does much better in
>> echoing your mistake, but that article calls Derrida -- who you
>> bizarrely tried to dismiss -- "the most impotant figure in
>> poststructural analysis." And guess what? �Derrida's work goes
>> back several years _before_ then.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
> I didn't try to dismiss him.
Untrue. When I gave examples of post-structuralism dating
from before 1968 -- an impossibility if you're right in
saying it was created after that time -- you casually dismissed
them by saying "All you did was to list some random books by
random authors." So from your perspective Foucault and Derrida
are merely random authors of random books unrelated to
post-structuralism: a dumb-ass idea even according to your own
sources.
You also had the strange notion post-structuralist writing
is required to "deal mainly with politics." Apparently
another of the misconceptions you found on the web and accepted
as gospel truth.
> I said that *you* have given
> us no reasons for believing that he is a post-structuralist
> because you refuse to tell us what you think post-
> structuralism is.
Derrida is identified as a post-structuralist in every one
of the articles you've cited. So either you don't read the
things you quoted from or you don't believe what they say, even
though you insisted you were giving a helpful summary. I
asked which but you didn't reply, presumably because it's a bad
look for you either way.
>>�To repeat, he delivered
>> "Structure, Sign, and Play" at Johns Hopkins in 1966. �_Writing
>> and Difference_, _Of Grammatology_, and _Speech and
>> Phenomena_ were all published in '67 and include writings early
>> as 1963 (viz. the comments on structuralism in "Force and
>> Signification"). �So much for the idea post-structuralism began
>> in reply to the '68 ruckus.
> Look, the question of when an intellectual movement
> such as post-structuralism is born is a question of
> interpretation. Simply pointing to a few isolated pieces
> of writing or lectures prior to 1968 is not conclusive
> proof that post-structuralism existed as an intellectual
> movement prior to 1968.
Pointing out that post-structuralist writings -- including
some big-ticket items like _Of Grammatology_, _Writing and
Difference_, and _The Order Of Things_ -- predate '68 disproves
your uninformed idea that post-structualism was created
sometime later on. Thus your switch to comments about when the
parade began.
> I quoted two writers who, like
> me, see 1968 as a key element in the origins of post-
> structuralism.
You quoted random opinionating you found while surfing the
web. Thinking those opinions agreed with yours, you
automatically elevated them to the status of evidence. (Thanks
for showing "Enlightenment fundamentalism" at work.) So
happens one of them is making a significantly milder claim than
you, stating merely that post-structuralism has a link with
May '68 rather than ignorantly insisting it didn't exist before
then. The other repeats your mistake but labels Derrida --
who didn't wait for '68 to happen -- "the most important figure
in poststructuralism," thereby uncutting its assertion and
yours. Again it seems that you don't bother to read the things
you quote from.
> They give reasons for why they think so.
None you've been able to find. All you've offered are two
naked assertions. One falls far short of your claim
post-structuralism was created only after 1968, since it simply
refers to a link with the student rebellion. The other is a
much better match for your dogma -- but the article you grabbed
it from unwittingly disputes itself by calling Derrida "the
most important figure in poststructural analysis," thus pushing
the start back several years.
> You simply igored their reasons.
I pointed out that one doesn't offer you the agreement you
claimed to find while the other argues against itself (and
thus against you) by strongly insisting on Derrida's importance
in post-structuralism.
> It seems you are
> completely unaware that the political events of May 1968
> and the birth of post-structuralism are connected.
Since you thought that quoting opinions like yours counted
as an argument, reciting your beliefs must seem like
irrefutable proof to you, and it's only natural you're ignoring
the obvious counter-examples.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>>> Derrida ... delivered
>>> "Structure, Sign, and Play" at Johns Hopkins in 1966. �_Writing
>>> and Difference_, _Of Grammatology_, and _Speech and
>>> Phenomena_ were all published in '67 and include writings early
>>> as 1963 (viz. the comments on structuralism in "Force and
>>> Signification"). �So much for the idea post-structuralism began
>>> in reply to the '68 ruckus.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
>> Look, the question of when an intellectual movement
>> such as post-structuralism is born is a question of
>> interpretation.
Of course. And your interpretation is wrong. Derrida and
some other post-structuralists were writing and publishing
_before_ May '68 (examples above), so to say post-structuralism
was created later is mistaken.
>> Simply pointing to a few isolated pieces
>> of writing or lectures prior to 1968 is not conclusive
>> proof that post-structuralism existed as an intellectual
>> movement prior to 1968.
Hypocrite. You were perfectly happy to contend "atheistic
philosophy by no means starts with Nietzsche" (attacking a
strawman, since nobody here was claiming that it did) by citing
"Baron D'Holbach's System of Nature in 1770." And the
qualifications you keep quietly adding to your claim ("existing
as an intellectual movement," "crystallized and became
established") are tacit admissions that your original assertion
doesn't stand up.
>> I quoted two writers who, like
>> me, see 1968 as a key element in the origins of post-
>> structuralism.
You quoted one person who linked post-structuralism to May
'68 _without_ making your claim it originated sometime
afterwards, so you were wrong to say that he or she agreed with
you.
The other quote sounded like you, but the article you took
it from ruined its own case by saying that Derrida is "the
most important figure in poststructural analysis." I guess you
didn't read the whole thing.
> They give reasons for why they think so.
None that you offered. But in fairness I don't think you
were trying. You seemed to feel it was enough to find
somebody with a webpage who agreed with you. The rational mind
on display again.
> Here are two more writers who see May 1968
> as a key event in the birth of post-structuralism.
I'm sure it's comforting for you to have company in making
such a foolish mistake. Too bad that "I read it on the
Internet" isn't any kind of argument, forget about a convincing
one.
> "Post-structuralism was a product of that blend of
> euphoria and disillusionment, liberation and dissipation,
> carnival and catastrophe, which was 1968. Unable to
> break the structures of state power, post-structuralism
> found it possible instead to break the structures of language..."
> -- Terry Eagleton
> http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/foucault.html
Nice that you're reading up. You'll be interested to know
your quote comes from Eagleton's _Literary Theory: An
Introduction_ (p. 142 in my paperback). He offers a nice story
but doesn't add any special reason to agree. More the
opposite: he disputes himself by making Derrida central to his
discussion.
> "In the field of philosophy the post-structuralist wave
> struck Paris after 1968 and produced 'a rage against
> humanism and the Enlightenment legacy.'"
> http://www.angelfire.com/ar/corei/foucault.html
A statement about when the wave hit, not about when it was
created.
> Professor Eagleton is certainly a greater authority on the
> subject than you are. So it is not a case of me having
> to prove that May 1968 was a key event in the birth
> of post-structuralism. It is the other way around.
> You, a nobody compared to academic authorities
> like Professor Eagleton, must prove that May 1968
> was not a key event in the birth of post-structuralism.
> Publication dates of a few works by Derrida won't
> do the trick.
On the contrary: showing post-structuralists like Derrida
and Foucault published for example _Of Grammatology_, _The
Order Of Things_ and the stuff in _Writing and Difference_ from
'63 to '67 demonstrates you were uninformed in saying
post-structuralism dates from sometime after May '68. Icing on
the cake is that you're now reduced to argument from
authority, turning your "Enlightenment fundamentalism" into the
medieval kind.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
> >>> "Structure, Sign, and Play" at Johns Hopkins in 1966. _Writing
> >>> and Difference_, _Of Grammatology_, and _Speech and
> >>> Phenomena_ were all published in '67 and include writings early
> >>> as 1963 (viz. the comments on structuralism in "Force and
> >>> Signification"). So much for the idea post-structuralism began
> >>> in reply to the '68 ruckus.
>
>
> >> Look, the question of when an intellectual movement
> >> such as post-structuralism is born is a question of
> >> interpretation.
>
> Of course. And your interpretation is wrong. Derrida and
> some other post-structuralists were writing and publishing
> _before_ May '68 (examples above), so to say post-structuralism
> was created later is mistaken.
That is just your own personal interpretation. Here
is the interpretation of Professor Terry Eagleton:
"Post-structuralism was a product of that blend of
euphoria and disillusionment, liberation and dissipation,
carnival and catastrophe, which was 1968. Unable to
break the structures of state power, post-structuralism
found it possible instead to break the structures of language..."
-- Terry Eagleton
http://media.ucsc.edu/classes/thompson/foucault.html
And for your information, I also happen to have
read the book the quote is from (and own a copy).
Not exactly a rare book. I believe it's used as a
textbook in the introductory course on literary
criticism at the University of Helsinki, and was
recommended to me years ago by a friend.
Marko Amnell
> >> connected with the 1968 Paris student uprisings" says alot less
> >> than your assertion that post-structuralism was created only
> >> after the 'events of May.' "The birth of post-structuralism is
> >> considered to have occurred in 1968" does much better in
> >> echoing your mistake, but that article calls Derrida -- who you
> >> bizarrely tried to dismiss -- "the most impotant figure in
> >> poststructural analysis." And guess what? Derrida's work goes
> >> back several years _before_ then.
>
>
> > I didn't try to dismiss him.
>
> Untrue. When I gave examples of post-structuralism dating
> from before 1968 -- an impossibility if you're right in
> saying it was created after that time -- you casually dismissed
> them by saying "All you did was to list some random books by
> random authors." So from your perspective Foucault and Derrida
> are merely random authors of random books unrelated to
> post-structuralism: a dumb-ass idea even according to your own
> sources.
>
> You also had the strange notion post-structuralist writing
> is required to "deal mainly with politics." Apparently
> another of the misconceptions you found on the web
> and accepted as gospel truth.
That is another misunderstanding from you.
What I said was that none of the examples of
post-structuralist writings you have given deal
mainly with politics. This is relevent because we
are discussing the issue of whether or not the
political events of May 1968 played a crucial
role in the birth of post-structuralism. I believe
those political events were crucial in the birth
of the movement. Terry Eagleton agrees with
me. You disagree. I said earlier that a crude
way to understand what happened is to say that
in May 1968 traditional Marxist theory failed,
so various post-structuralist authors decided
to move beyond the analysis in Marx's
_Capital_. Eagleton says: "Unable to break the
structures of state power, post-structuralism
found it possible instead to break the structures
of language..." One example of this moving
away from traditional Marxist theory I pointed
to was Jean Baudrillard's _Pour une critique
de l'économie politique du signe_, which was
published in 1972. Your response when I
brought up that book was to think that I made
the claim that there was no semiotic analysis
of consumer society before 1968. (So you
pointed to Barthes's analysis in 1957). Not at all.
If you had read Baudrillard's book, you would
know that in it he starts from Marx's analysis
of exchange value in _Capital_ and supplements
it in an interesting way with his own analysis of
what he calls "sign value." That is one way in
which post-structuralist theory was created as
a result of the perceived failure of traditional
Marxist theory in 1968. Since the old theory
did not work, one thing to try was to supplement
it by a semiotic analysis of consumer society.
Marko Amnell
Another example of how post-structuralist
theory was created in response to the perceived
failure of traditional Marxist theory in 1968
is Deleuze and Guattari's _Anti-Oedipus,
published in 1972 (and the sequel, _A Thousand
Plateaus_ which as I said, was my first exposure
to post-structuralism in 1989). In these two books,
the authors reject traditional Marxist analysis
of society and move beyond it in various ways
(e.g. by trying to achieve a synthesis of Marxism
and Freudian psycho-analysis). So here are some
examples of what I meant when I originally said
that post-structuralism was "created by former
French revolutionary communists following
the failure of 1968." Baudrillard and
Deleuze & Gauttari, in their own ways, were
French Marxists who realized after the failure
of the May 1968 protests that no revolution
was forthcoming, and reacted by altering
traditional Marxist theory, thus creating
post-structuralist theory. The failure of 1968
had a big impact on Marxist theory and
practice in general. Another possible reaction
was to become an urban guerrilla.
Catawumpus
>>� ... Derrida and
>> some other post-structuralists were writing and publishing �
>> _before_ May '68 (examples above), so to say post-structuralism
>> was created later is mistaken.
Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
> That is just your own personal interpretation.
False. That's an interpretation I've taken the trouble to
support with relevant examples. Your only reply is a
self-admitted argument-from-authority. So much for rationality.
> Here is the interpretation of Professor Terry Eagleton:
You tried that already. Not a thing to support Eagleton's
story post-structuralism followed May '68, which he
contradicts by giving Derrida a central place in his discussion.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> What I said was that none of the examples of
> post-structuralist writings you have given deal
> mainly with politics.
Nope, not what you said. You tried to dismiss Derrida and
Foucault -- my examples of post-structuralism dating from
before May '68 -- by claiming I'd named "random books by random
authors." An idiotic reply, since both of them are in the
sources you've quoted from, including the 'helpful summary' you
credited yourself for pasting in.
While you were at it, you also complained that their books
"were not ones that deal mainly with politics," as though
focusing on any other theme was good reason to remove them from
the discussion.
> Terry Eagleton agrees with me.
More argument-from-authority -- and what's less, Eagleton
disputes you by including Derrida.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> On Jun 2, 12:05�am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
> Another example of how post-structuralist
> theory was created in response to the perceived
> failure of traditional Marxist theory in 1968
> is Deleuze and Guattari's _Anti-Oedipus,
> published in 1972 (and the sequel, _A Thousand
Examples of post-structuralism from after 1968 do zilch to
prove it was missing before then or remove the others I've
given showing it was around before the time you say that it was
created.
> Plateaus_ which as I said, was my first exposure
> to post-structuralism in 1989). In these two books,
> the authors reject traditional Marxist analysis
> of society and move beyond it in various ways
> (e.g. by trying to achieve a synthesis of Marxism
> and Freudian psycho-analysis).
Wrong again. "Synthesis of Marxism and Freudian
psycho-analysis" was an earlier project that culminated in the
work of Marcuse (though I'm sure there were others who
continued laboring in the fields). Even if you never read any
more than the front cover the title alone should clue you
that _Anti-Oedipus_ goes a whole 'nother direction, critiquing
psycho-analysis and Marxism instead of combining them.
Around the same time (1973), Deleuze begins "Nomad Thought" by
stating that while Marx and Freud may represent modern
culture, "Nietzsche is something entirely different: the dawn
of counterculture."
-- Catawumpus