UGC MHRD ePG Pathshala Subject: English Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Paper 16: Cultural Studies Paper Coordinator: Prof. Pramod K. Nayar, University of Hyderabad Module No 13: Poststructuralism and Cultural Studies Content writer: Ms. Akhila Narayan, Union Christian College, Aluva Content Reviewer: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad Language Editor: Prof. Pramod K. Nayar, University of Hyderabad Module 13: Poststructuralism and Cultural Studies INTRODUCTION Poststructuralism can be understood broadly as a set of theoretical propositions or a philosophical outlook that emerged in France in the late 1960s and challenged the established traditions of thought in the West. It bears a skeptical attitude and staunch distrust towards anything ‘fixed’ or ‘definite’ and strives to subvert it. Poststructuralism is philosophically reflexive as it constantly subjects its own assumptions and interpretative practices to scrutiny and resists any attempt towards reductionism into a single formula or method. Its radical propositions on language, history, science and knowledge have reoriented disciplines like philosophy, linguistics, literature, arts and social sciences. Theoretical approaches like Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, postcolonialism etc. have contributed to and in turn borrowed heavily from poststructuralist thought. Though the immediate context of poststructuralism can be traced to Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s sign theory of language, which it shares with structuralism; its philosophical rigour comes from continental philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and his critique of Enlightenment, Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, and Sigmund Freud. Poststructuralism is instrumental in establishing the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies as it broadened the definition of such terms as language, text and culture and diffused the hierarchies between high and low culture. Its immediate effect has been the inclusion of texts like television, sops, rock music, films etc. into the fold of cultural studies. The term poststructuralism is Janus faced as it at once suggests a departure from structuralism and continuation of the same. Most of its premises issue from structuralism, retains the latter’s anti-humanist stance and its view of reality being inscribed in language. However it raps structuralism for falling short of exploring the full potential of its findings. Poststructuralism blames structralists for falling prey to the same pseudo-scientific tendencies of western metaphysics reducing everything to a structural framework. Poststructuralism, thus one could say, is a reworking structuralism taking the latter’s findings to its proper conclusion. Having said that, poststructuralism is not a monolithic school or movement; its character and texture is highly polysemic as it draws from several disciplines like philosophy, linguistics, psychoanalysis etc. Some of the prominent thinkers, who have shaped poststructuralist thought, are Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Giles Deleuz and Felix Guattari. Though each of them has developed distinct theoretical strands of poststructuralism there are certain commonly shared assumptions among them. SECTION I- KEY ASSUMPTIONS 1. Rejects essentialist, totalizing, foundationalist concepts:- Poststructuralism is skeptical of essentialist, totalizing or foundationalist theories that positions, explains or stabilizes all other discourses. Totalizing refers to theories that purport to explain or justify all phenomena or practices. For instance Marxism believes that emancipation of human society can come about only through revolutions. In postmodern lingo they are known as metanatrratives. Essentialism is a doctrine that ascribes a fixed or essential property to people or phenomenon that is deemed universal. Thus essentialists would argue that there is such a thing as ‘reality,’ ‘truth,’ ‘beauty,’ and ‘feminine’ by default. Foundationalism rests on the certainty that there is a centre or origin that exists outside the play of language that acts as a foundation for all forms of thought. It controls and governs all forms of knowledge and meaning and lends structure to them. Logocenticism, phonocenticism, phallagocenrtcism etc. represent different fa cets of this view. Derrida gave them an alternate term known as ‘transcendental signifieds’ (refer to the section on Deconstruction). Western philosophy and thought is grounded on the assumption that there is a centre, origin or essence outside of language that escapes the play of language. Poststructuralism proceeds to break down this myth by claiming that our world is linguistically determined. And since language itself as a system is unstable (a point explained under Deconstruction) all that it constitutes should be subject to slippage and instability. 2. Foregrounds Theory: Poststructuralism disputes ‘common sense’ and calls into question concepts and categories that are considered as natural or taken for granted. It challenges received ideas and forces us to rethink and reexamine naturalized social arrangements, institutions and habitual thought processes of society. Since this is by and large a speculative practice, poststructuralism underscores the primacy of theory wherein it is imperative to ‘theorize’ one’s position and practice. To theorize is to state the general conditions of signification that determine meaning and interpretation in all fields of human action and deliberations. This explains the self-reflexive nature of poststructuralist enterprise. 3. Decentered Subject: Poststructuralism rejects the humanistic view of individual as autonomous being endowed with coherent, purposive and deterministic self. Such a view upholds that the individual self or the author is the centre or origin of all knowledge, meanings and values. Human self acts as the organizing principle or the agent that controls the form and meaning of the text. Poststructuralism contests this view and replaces the concept of individual with that of the constructed ‘subject’-- who is a product of social, cultural, political, economic, and psychosexual forces that broadly make up one’s context at a given point in time. Human selves are no longer thus deemed as essential, transcendental or universally constant but subject to socio-cultural discourses and is constantly in the making. The subject is thus always ‘in process’ (Kristeva). Since it questions the humanistic concept of self and identity, poststructuralism is considered as anti- humanistic. 4. Constructedness of Knowledge and Reality: Poststructuralism rejects the possibility of an objective reality or truth and see them as social constructs. Reality is always shaped in/ by discourse(s), both the way we perceive it and the reality that is perceived. The kinds of ideology or discourse that we have internalized or are surrounded by determine how we perceive the world around us. For instance the perception of the blacks as an inferior race in relation to the whites was validated, and sanctioned as truth within colonial discourse. Poststructuralism argues that it is impossible to comprehend anything in totality; reality is multiple, partial and textual (as it’s mediated through language). By the same logic, knowledge and its production happen not in a neutral environment but in a discursive one, under the influence of several conditional factors. Such a view takes away the possibility of secure knowledge and instead leaves us a world where ‘there are no facts, only interpretations.’ SECTION II- KEY FOCI 1. Deconstruction Deconstruction, often described as ‘applied poststructuralism’ is associated with the works of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida in 1966 presented a paper titled ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences’ at John Hopkins University, USA, wherein he exposed the theoretical limitations of structuralism and critiqued the notion of structurality. To many it was an ‘event’ that displaced structuralism and ushered in the era of poststructuralism. Derrida builds his theory of deconstruction on the premises laid down by Saussure in his theory of signs. Saussure defines language as a system of signs where each sign consists of two parts namely, the signifier (word) and the signified (concept/object). The immediate relation between the signifier and the signified, Saussure says, is arbitrary and it is established through repetition and conventions. This means to say that the form and meaning of the signifier is not dictated by outside reality (for if that were the case we would have just one word to refer to one object and hence only one language) but emerges from its difference from other signifiers. Thus the word ‘tree’ has no implicit connection with the actual entity in nature. We associate the word ‘tree’ with the concept of tree through repeated use of the word to refer to the same. Given this, Saussure goes on to say, what gives the word its form and meaning is its relation with and difference from other words like ‘plant,’ ‘shrub,’ ‘grass,’ ‘bush’ etc. The stated propositions on the relation between signifier and signified proved quite revolutionary as it undermined the earlier notion of language as a ‘transparent medium’ that reflects reality as it is. But the more profound implication of Saussure’s theory was the realization that language is not derived from reality but exists as a live system that is independent of outside reality and that our only access to reality is through the