The
Transition from Structuralism to Post-structuralism: History as Backdrop in
Post World War Second Theories
Shahrukh Khan
PhD
Research Scholar
The English and Foreign Languages University,
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
Abstract:
Yeats’s concept of “gyre”
and “double gyre,” used in the poem The
Second Coming, is influenced by Hegel’s idea of dialectic, where two
opposite movements, thesis and anti-thesis—be it in history, philosophy,
politics, and theories—lead to higher integration (synthesis). Sometimes this
has also resulted in anarchy but later it does maintain peace in some way or
another. The French Revolution is one prominent example. This is also the basis
of history and progress, and this is how one phase of history succeeds the
next. This paper will present history as the backdrop of theories with
particular reference to the transition from structuralism to poststructuralism.
In this paper, I argue that the transition occurred due the significant
influence of other theories that preceded it but it has also evolved through
the historical incidents of the time. The aftermath of World War II
significantly influenced literary theories, shaping the themes and approaches
of many writers and critics. These literary theories reflect the profound ways
in which the historical context of the post-World War II era shaped literary
thought and expression.
Keywords: Dialectic, Literary theory, Post-structuralism,
Post-World War II, Structuralism
Introduction
“Turning
and turning in the widening gyre
The
falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things
fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”
̶̶ ̶ ̶̶̶ W.B.
Yeats
The period following World
War II saw significant shifts in global dynamics, which influenced various
theoretical frameworks and academic disciplines. The devastation and
existential crises brought about by the war led to the rise of existentialist
and absurdist literature. Writers like Albert Camus and Samuel Beckett
explored themes of meaninglessness, alienation, and the human state in a world that seemed devoid of
purpose. The war’s impact on society and culture also influenced the transition
from modernism to postmodernism. While modernist literature often focused on
fragmentation and disillusionment, postmodernist literature embraced a more
playful, skeptical, and self-referential approach. The psychological impact of
the war led to the development of trauma theory in literature. This theory
explores how literature represents and processes traumatic experiences.
In
this paper, I have limited myself to the transitional phase which has led to
poststructuralism. Structuralism views the world as a collection of formal
structures and centralised logic that can be retrieved through scientific
reasoning. As a result, structuralism is a highly scientifically focused
paradigm, but why is that? Why did theorists suddenly revert to a scientific
manner of explaining everything after so many -isms and ideologies?
Following
the end of WWII, Marxist and existentialist beliefs dominated French politics
and culture. Nikita Krushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, delivered a well-known lecture titled "On the Cult of
Personality and its Consequences" on February 25, 1956. "Secret
Speech" is another name for this speech. Krushchev enumerated all of
Stalin's atrocities in this speech, which horrified the entire party and caused
several of them to have a heart attack in the middle of the speech. For the
Soviet Union, Stalin was virtually a god-like figure, yet this speech has
called communism's worldview into question. In addition, a student riot against
communism occurred in Hungary in October 1956. In the mid-to-late 1950s, this
resulted in widespread disapproval and disenchantment with the philosophy.
Furthermore, Marxists' proclivity for reading a movement through diachronic and
dialectic methods has disillusioned the masses. Structuralism distinguished
itself from Marxist thought's historical approach and Hegelian dialectics by
emphasising synchronicity.
Structuralism
provided a compelling solution to this dilemma by emphasizing scientific rather
than ideological foundations. Consequently, the entire discourse began to shift
from conservative ideologies towards more scientific methodologies. Structuralism
contested the ideologies promoted by Marxism and communism. Prominent thinkers
associated with the movement at various times included Claude Lévi-Strauss,
Jacques Lacan, Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, Tzvetan Todorov, Roland
Barthes, Jacques Derrida, and Pierre Bourdieu. Structuralism promised to
uncover the mysteries of human culture by proposing new perspectives on social
relations. As a result, the movement thrived during the 1960s and 70s. But as
Wittgenstein said, “philosophy is battle against the bewitchment of our
intelligence by means of language,” even structuralism has been questioned by
the same people who were practicing it at some point. An important lecture
given by Jacques Derrida entitled, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse
of Human Science,” presented at John Hopkins University in 1966, marked the
destabilization of structuralism and the rise of poststructuralism. Derrida
attacked the very idea of logocentrism which believes that external reality can
only be explained through logo. As a result, the logo is the centre and the
truth. He has critically questioned the unitary notion of subject and stable
sign systems. During this period, Foucault was working on History of
Madness (1961), which had the added advantage of bridging history with
the structuralist movement. While structuralists like Lévi-Strauss preferred
science over history, Foucault was challenging science with one of its most
radical critiques, grounded entirely in historical analysis. He began studying
the history of science in earnest. Foucault claims that the discourse of
madness originates with the Renaissance in this work. It was a moment when
insanity and rationality coexisted. With their paradoxical words, the idiots in
Shakespearean plays, for example, are both the acme of madness and rationality.
Madness and reason were separated with the advent of the Enlightenment. He
actually tries to find the social structure which leads to the evolution of
madness. Thus, this book is somewhere in a limbo, between his structuralist and
poststructuralist’s point of view. This book of Foucault has been criticized by
Derrida in his, “Cogito and the History of Madness” (1963). For Derrida, the
instance of decision making is actually madness. Among the thinkers linked to
structuralism, Derrida’s stance was arguably the most ambiguous. As early as
1963, Derrida began formulating a clear critique of structuralism, which would
eventually be known as poststructuralism. Central to this critique was a
question directed at Foucault: from which privileged position does Foucault
conduct his history of silence and the repressed? In Derrida’s own words:
Is not an archaeology, even of silence, a
logic, that is, an organized language, a project, an order, a sentence, a
syntax, a work? Would not the archaeology of silence be the most ericaceous and
subtle restoration, the repetition, in the most irreducibly ambiguous meaning
of the word, of the act perpetrated against madness – and be so at the very
moment when this act is denounced? (38)
Derrida,
after three years of critiquing History of Madness, participated in
The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man, a pivotal event in
antiquity of structuralism, at Johns Hopkins University colloquium. This
colloquium, which featured prominent figures such as Lacan, Todorov, Goldmann,
Barthes, and Derrida, introduced American academic community to French
structuralism. However, Derrida’s contribution stood out as a critical
examination of the paradigm’s underlying assumptions.
Thus, the decline of structuralism coincided with its
rise to prominence. Derrida sought to destabilize the core of the structuralist
framework by challenging and unravelling its metaphysical assumptions as it
gained widespread acceptance. Contrary to breaking away from philosophy,
Derrida pointed out that many structuralists, like Lévi-Strauss and Jakobson,
disseminated some of the enduring patterns in the history of philosophy, such
as the preference for voice (phonocentrism) over writing (logocentrism).However,
as evidenced by his participation in the Johns Hopkins colloquium, Derrida was
neither an adversary nor an outsider to the structuralist movement. Instead, he
operated within structuralism to dismantle it, following his methodological
approach.Derrida’s work on deconstruction, which questioned the
fixed relationships between signifiers and signifieds in language, played a
crucial role. At one point,
Derrida acknowledged, “Since we derive nourishment from the fecundity of
structuralism, it is too soon to demolish our dream” (03). Consequently, while
Derrida initiated an internal renovation of structuralism from the early 1960s,
the full recognition and culmination of this shift awaited a more opportune
external moment.
History as Backdrop
Like student’s Hungarian
riot (1956), which has questioned the authority of communism and paves the way
for structuralism which was more politically and socially motivated,
poststructuralism was also influenced by an important movement at the brink of
60s. Derrida has already started the discourse concerning poststructuralism
which has been further firmly grounded with May’68 Riots. The student who
occupied of the Sorbonne made it clear that the spirit of '68 was not aligned
with structuralism: “Structures,” read a well-known slogan, “don’t take to the
streets.” This resentment towards structuralism from rudiments of the
unsuccessful revolution can be attributed to the untimely nature of May '68. If
May '68 was a philosophical and political social event, it was largely due to
its unexpected nature. Almost everyone, including the structuralist
experimenters, did not foresee the unrest. Thus, May '68 was not so much a
creation of its time but rather an untimely outbreak that would only later be
re-contextualized. The participants were mostly disorganized and lacked a
unified goal beyond dismantling the system. Given this, it is predictable that
structuralism, the prominent “sign of the times,” was out of sync with this
premature rupture. The discordancy of structuralism with the rebellious
mentality of May '68 was further tinted by the fact that structuralism
encouraged singular and certain systems that demanded strict adherence to a way
or procedure, whether it meant allegiance to Science, Lacan, or another master
principle. Following rules and submitting to a worldwide and enticing system
was not characteristic of the spirit of '68.The broader intellectual shift
towards postmodernism, which emphasized the instability of meaning and the
fragmentation of grand narratives, also supported the rise of
poststructuralism.
Important
texts associated with post-structuralism is Roland Barthé’s essay, “The Death
of the Author.” This very essay acts as a fringe between Barthé’s structuralist
and poststructuralist point of view. The moment he has decentralized the
subject (the author), he has actually entered in the poststructuralism.
Foucault, in the reply of Barthé’s essay, wrote “What is an Author?” He talks
about the author and the authorship. Like the way he has traced back the history
of madness scientifically, he has traced back the history of authorship too.
Foucault questioned, if we will only consider language as something superior
then what is an author, why should we even consider an author? Even if there
are new discoveries in the field of theories, literature, and philosophy, there
is still a question: who has written this work? This shows that the only thing
that remains constant is the author. The author is always outside and precedes
it.
Conclusion
History did not only serve
as the backdrop of all the theories but also shaped it and moulded it in need.
Thus, the rise of Queer theory is somehow associated with Stonewall riots,
1969. The end of World War II also marked the beginning of the decolonization
process in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Postcolonial theory emerged to
analyse the impacts of colonialism and the struggles of newly independent
nations. Obscurity and open-endedness of all the theories post-50s can be
understood through history. From the above discussion it is quite clear that
theories, apart from being originated from the theories precedes it, also has
its root in the political and social movements which has defined an age. From
the structuralism to poststructuralism down to queer theory, each theory is
somehow associated with the particular movement of the respective time.
Works
Cited
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the
Author.” Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader, edited by David Lodge,
Pearson Longman, 2018, pp. 145–150.
Cahoone, Lawrence. The Modern
Intellectual Tradition: From Descartes to Derrida. The Teaching Company,
2010.
Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign,
and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” Modern Criticism and
Theory: A Reader, edited by David Lodge, Pearson Longman, 2018, pp. 88–103.
Dillet, Benoît, et al.,
editors. The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism. Edinburgh
University Press, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09v6s.
Foucault, Michel. History of
Madness. Routledge, 2009.
Leitch, Vincent B.,
editor. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 3rd ed., W.W.
Norton & Company, 2018.
Lundy, Craig. “From Structuralism to
Poststructuralism.” The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism, edited
by Benoite Dillet, Iain MacKenzie, et al., Edinburgh University Press, 2013,
pp. 67–90.
Mann, Neil, et al. W.B. Yeats's A
Vision: Explications and Contexts. Clemson University Digital Press, 2012.
The Teaching Company. World
Philosophy. The Great Courses, 2010.
Tyson,
Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. 3rd ed.,
Routledge, 2014.
Walmsley, Charis Snipp.
“Postmodernism.” Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide. Oxford
University Press, 2007, pp. 405–425.
Yeats, William Butler. “The Second
Coming by William Butler Yeats.” Poetry Foundation, Poetry Foundation,
www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming.