Philosophy : Poststructuralism A Very Short Introduction Very Short Introductions
Marx: A Very Short Introduction | 
 | 80% Recommended by our customers.
Catalog:
Manufacturer: Oxford University Press, USA
Release Date:
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
List Price: $11.95
Our Price: $6.30
Used Price: $3.36
(all prices are subject to changes)
More Details
Amazon international :
| |
- ISBN13: 9780192801807
- Condition: New
- Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
|
|
 Excellent Description
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 theoretically 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.
Very good short introduction on a hard topic.
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.
 Good Intro to a Poverty Stricken way of Thinking
I have been involved in the patient personal scholarship of post structuralism for about 6 months in an attempt to see if contemporary social sciences which base many of their arguments on power relationships can add anything useful to the debate other than airy ideas which seem to be little linked in fact. If one is used to considering the world through a scientific method the post-structuralism is profoundly weak in terms of both explanation and predictability.
The ground in the Humanities is still split between hard core empirical studies, mostly in economics and history describing conditions and general trends verifiable but weak, or purposefully weak on theory, but high on practically and pointing people in productive areas of research. On the other I have found some social sciences, post-structuralism in particular is erected on theory (some almost wholly erected)with little, or no empirical research. This book describes a large chunk of the latter way of thinking in preconcieved notions or power that are neither empirical nor subject to disproof.
Post-structuralism offers unbridgeable propositions between the world of measurement and inquiry and that of pure theory. Post-structuralism moves so far away from any idea of a rational predictable and probability-base world that it completely erodes almost all of the substrates of traditional knowledge (classical rational inquiry and the scientific method) Post-structuralism is an attempt to cut loose from any intellectual tradition beyond very abstruse and subjective inquiries. It risks rendering traditional disciplines within the social sciences and newer "studies" of irrelevant disciplines. Post-structuralism can also make anyone feel intelligent because it function as an independent centre of knowledge generation - but not knowledge as traditionally understood (a point to be considered elsewhere).
Witness the fact of post-structuralism and it ability to erect an edifice completely outside any intellectual tradition that existed before WWII (except Marx and Freud). Moreover if you focus upon a certain point of theoretical knowledge and pursue it rigorously one finds that it either degenerates into a meaningless tautology - eg. such as the Foucault notion of power, or it trails off and merges in other ethereal theories that really have neither utility, nor, most importantly, meaning.
In addition, this strain of strained "intellectualism" stands, in many respects, outside the tradition of western thought. As such it remains aloof and immune to any ballast or stabilization afforded by empirical and scientific thought.
All of this seems to bode well for such post-structuralism as a literary theory, which is a wonderful and intoxicating endevour full of invention and wonderful manufactured meaning - it has little to do with reality and therefore should not, and in fact is not, a social science. In this sense Belsey does a wonderful job of describing the intellectual sham that is Post-structuralism.
The really pitiful state some of the social sciences have become is manifested in the deplorable thinkers and academics who are so enamoured with their theories and purported truth statements that describe unknown worlds -- worlds that bear no relationship to reality, worlds that are pure think products -- that they actually think that some higher or useful purpose of social understanding or worthy endevours (such as the striving for social justice) can be furthered with their line of explanation.
People are not theory and the worst experiences of mankind have been based upon people trying to pound facts, and often people, into theory. So far these bumpy thoughts have been relegated to the nether reaches of self-referential departments outside classical academia. And there they should stay.
Postunderstanding
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.
Quite good, considering its length
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.
|
|
|
