An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism

by Madan Sarup

Some underlining and annotations in text in a couple of the chapters. Otherwise great condition. From my personal/professional library. Prompt shipping and customer service. Satisfaction guaranteed.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Sociology, Nonfiction, Cultural Studies, Language

Paperback

First published January 1, 1989

Reviews

[فؤاد]

کتاب از چند فصل تشکیل شده و در هر فصل به یکی از متفکران پست مدرن می پردازه:
ژاک لاکان و روانکاوی
ژاک دریدا و واسازی
میشل فوکو و علوم اجتماعی
دلوز و گاتاری
سیکوس، ایریگاری و کریستوا: فمینیسم فرانسوی
لیوتار و پسامدرنیسم
بودریار

اما دو نکته مانع شد بتونم استفاده کنم از کتاب. یکی زبان سختشه، که شاید اصلاً نوشته شده که توسط یه استاد تدریس بشه، نه این که فرد خودش بخونه.
و دوم هم این که به نظرم می رسید انسجامی که من دنبالش بودم رو نداره. من بیشتر از جزئیات نظریات، می خوام کلیتی منظم از نظریه بدونم، که بتونم ارتباطش با قبل و بعد رو درک کنم و توی تصویر کلی، جاش بدم. و تا زمانی که همچین تصویر کلی منسجمی پیدا نکردم، پرداختن به جزئیات فقط سردرگمی م رو بیشتر می کنه.
در نتیجه، کتاب رو گذاشتم کنار. نمی دونم دوباره بهش بر خواهم گشت یا نه.

بعد نوشت:
بعد از نوشتن ریویو، ترجمه رو با اصل انگلیسیِ کتاب مقایسه کردم، و متوجه شدم که این ترجمۀ افتضاح فارسی بوده که مانع فهم من می شده. به هیچ عنوان ترجمۀ فارسی این کتاب رو نخونید، چون حتی در ترجمۀ عبارات ساده هم پرت و پلا نوشته و می شه حدس زد که مترجم کتاب رو به دانشجوهاش داده تا هر فصل رو یکی ترجمه کنه. کتاب انگلیسی بسیار روان و روشن نوشته شده.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A. Similarities between structuralism and post-structuralism
1. Critique of the human subject. This is the individual/society inversion. Society becomes more important than the individual.
2. Critique of historicism. Historicism is the attempt to find a pattern to history. Levi-Strauss (a structuralist) attacks the progressive notion that present cultures are more advanced then ancient ones. Foucault (a post-structuralist) writes about the discontinuities of history without progress.
3. Linguistics. Saussure’s notion of linguistics and the sign as the symbol of meaning is a basis for both structuralism and post-structuralism. Language is moved to the center of philosophy.
4. Inversions. Priority of culture over nature.
B. What is structuralism?
1. An effort to find the structures of human activity. One such structure is a sign (signifier and signified).
2. An effort to find the function of those structures.
3. An effort to find general laws of society.
4. An effort to establish binary oppositions.
C. What is post-structuralism?
1. A shift from signified to signifier. Signified’s do not exist anymore.
2. The elimination of the human consciousness.
3. Objectivity and truth can never be obtained.
D. Modern and Postmodern definitions (see also Harvey)
1. Modernization: Urbanization, nation-states, scientific and technological innovation
2. Modernity: How we experience the cluster of social, economic, and political systems which came into being around the 18th century.
3. Modernism: Cultural and aesthetic movements which originated around the turn of the 20th century. Ford in technology, Schoenberg in music, Eliot in poetry, Picasso in painting.
4. Postmodernity: This is the emphasis of diverse forms of human and social identity. No grand narrative. No Enlightenment Project.
5. Postmodernism: The aesthetic movement within postmodernity. This includes the deletions of boundaries between life and art, no distinction between elite and popular culture, and the attempt to textualize everything from history to movies.

[Nick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just read this entire book without realising, until just now when I logged onto goodreads, that I had already read it back in 2009! Back then I gave it three stars and said that it assumed a degree of knowledge on the part of the reader. Second time around, and perhaps with the benefit of having read some more on the subject in the meantime, I found it much easier going and a broadly good overview. Also, Sarup's openly Marxist critique acted as a good spark to get me thinking about how I felt about the various positions he was setting out and which side of the arguments I am on.

Here's the 2009 review, for the record:

This provides a reasonably clear overview of an interesting subject. Two things to note, though: firstly, as has been mentioned, Sarup assumes a certain degree of knowledge regarding philosophical and literary terminology throughout. If you don't already know your Saussure from your Sartre, beware. Secondly, Sarup is very obviously a Marxist, and consistently critical of post-structuralism from a Marxist perspective throughout. This can be interesting, but don't expect a 'neutral' (whatever that means) assessment.

[Spencer Rich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a terrible intro to post-structuralism, but a pretty bad glaze job on post-modernism. He probably spends a little too much time dealing with the philosophers' relations with Marx and Nietzsche, but some of that can't be helped. There is also a great lack of direct quotes. That said, as far as summing up the ideas of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, etc., the author mostly succeeds. But you cannot talk about post-modernism without talking about visual art, architecture, fiction, poetry, music, etc. He briefly mentions Cage and a few others, but he doesn't come close to really getting into the subject of what makes an artist or writer a modernist or a post-modernist.

[Stan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The cliffs notes to a lot of the theory your smart art friends will talk about.

[Sahand · Rating 4 out of 5]

کتاب خوبیه ولی ترجمه‌ی فارسیش افتضاحه و به احتمال زیاد کار یک نفر نیست.

[Christian Rowe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic little book. No one before has been able to make sense of these nearly impossible concepts like Sarup does here. While I'm still scratching my head about a lot of it I at least have more of a footing than I ever have that I feel can propel me forward, especially with Lacan, Derrida and Baudrillard who I want to continue to try to read and understand. This text will serve as a great reference and I recommend it to anyone who wants to try and begin to grasp Post-Structuralism and Post-Modernism.

[sophia]

Read for paper research.

[Lightsey]

A real page-turner! --no, not exactly--just a clearly written account of some stuff I should have learned by now.
I can't recommend this as pre-nap reading. Not such great dreams after a little Lacan. . .

[Akın · Rating 4 out of 5]

Madan Sarup's Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism is a sufficient book but I'm not entirely sure if this is a good entrance to post-structuralism and post-modernism.

Sarup's account of post-modernism and post-modernity does not match with what I have learnt in my literature classes. First of all, while post-modernism refers to a general state of feeling and condition, post-modernity refers to a certain time period. Second of all, for someone to be categorized as a postmodernist is contradictory to postmodern philosophy which is against any form of rationalization and systemization. For that reason, postmodern thought is critical not only of other systems of thought but also itself. Linda Hutcheon, in her book The Politics of Post-Modernism (which, in my opinion, is a better introductory book), speaks of the conscious attention of post-modern thought towards "the illusion of critical distance". Nevertheless, postmodern attitude is not entirely that of a critical but more of an emotional one.

One of the reasons why Sarup's perception of the postmodern is different from what I have outlined so far could be that he is more interested in the political. This book is clearly written from a Marxist perspective after all. As other Marxist thinkers, Sarup is in favour of theories that lead to revolutionary action or societal transformation. His affinity for dialectical thought must have brought him closer to Lacan and made him hostile to other post-structuralist thinkers. It is better for the reader to bear these in mind.

[final muzak · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this was good, there were a lot of incredibly crucial ideas I think the author missed. I imagine it’s hard to jam a whole trajectory of thought into a small book though, and I wish he would have considering expanding it into a much larger text, as his writing is executed well for succinct introductions to complex thinkers.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want a good primer on post-structuralism and postmodernism, this is very good. I won’t say that it is particularly clear (because the subjects of this book are themselves varied and ambiguous), but it is as clear an introduction as you’re likely to find. The author does an admiral job of pulling together a vast array of influences and tributaries leading to these two worldviews.

[Rex Habitat · Rating 1 out of 5]

Difficult time reading this book. A mish mash of ideas and you have to read other sources to make sense of it.
I chose this book as an introductory reader but it's unorganized and abstruse. Why bother writing a book if you'll just only leave your readers frustrated.

[Abraham Vanselow · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got 3/4 through this book before my tent flooded and ruined this book. It was an enjoyable and informative read before its watery demise.

[Pijus · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism

[Ibid. · Rating 5 out of 5]

GOOD! Great, incisive. The best use you could probably get out of this book is by using each section as a preface before delving into each respective philosopher's work per se

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good overview of a challenging subject.

[Justine · Rating 4 out of 5]

a wonderful overview, I can always go back to it to structure my learning schedule

[Terra Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sarup writes about big concepts in an accessible yet poetic manner. I appreciated the text's organization and ability to entertain concepts and their criticisms, though I would have appreciated a longer, more structured conclusion.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

This 2nd edition adds a new chapter on French feminist thinkers Kristeva, Cixous, and Irigaray. There’s also a new chapter on Baudrillard. And the chapter on postmodernism has been expanded. Sarup is a good summarizer, but refrains from much argumentation of his own, with perhaps the major exception being his discussion of metaphor (47-50). The index is passable. His annotated bibliographies at the end of each chapter are excellent, especially because they refer to different works than those he cites in his end notes. There is no comprehensive bibliography, however, so you have go to each chapter and to the end notes to find sources.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

a really good survey of structuralism through postmodernism...
he often falls prey to the assumed knowledge syndrome, i.e. he constantly references terms and concepts he assumes you already know and understand, but it was still very informative and helpful...
just be prepared to look a lot of things up...
a glossary would have been nice...

[Wythe Marschall · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sarup's prose is clunky and repetitive, but his organization of complex ideas is dope.

He should spend more time on differance, in future editions. Deconstruction and the break with phono-logocentrism set up the rest of post-structuralism better than Lacan's reworking of Freud.

A good read.

[DoctorM · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good, quick, clear introduction to post-structuralist and postmodern theory. If you're beginning critical theory at all, Sarup is a handy reference and not at all a bad place to start.

[Richard Cubitt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not an easy read. Yet helpful in understanding the complexity behind these terms.

[Joey Briggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

good primers on lacan, foucault, and derrida