Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #073

by Catherine Belsey

Poststructuralism changes the way we understand the relations between human beings, their culture, and the world. Following a brief account of the historical relationship between structuralism and poststructuralism, this Very Short Introduction traces the key arguments that have led
poststructuralists to challenge traditional theories of language and culture. While the author discusses such well-known figures as Barthes, Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan, she also draws pertinent examples from literature, art, film, and popular culture, unfolding the poststructuralist account of
what it means to be a human being.

About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds
of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Theory, History, Sociology, Psychology, Literary Criticism

128 pages, Paperback

First published August 22, 2002

About the author

Catherine Belsey is currently Research Professor at Swansea University and formerly Distinguished Research Professor at Cardiff University. Best known for her pioneering book, Critical Practice (Methuen, 1980), Catherine Belsey has an international reputation as a deft and sophisticated critical theorist and subtle and eloquent critic of literature, particularly of Renaissance texts. Her main area of work is on the implications of poststructuralist theory for aspects of cultural history and criticism. Her present project is ’Culture and the Real’, a consideration of the limitations of contemporary constructivism in the light of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Professor Belsey chairs the Centre for Critical and Cultural Theory, a research forum for discussion and debate on current views of the relation between human beings and culture.

Reviews

[فؤاد · Rating 4 out of 5]

از ديدگاه ژاك لاكان فيلسوف و روانشناس فرانسوى، انسان تا قبل از فراگيرى زبان، تنها موجودى زنده است، بى آن كه شناختى خودآگاهانه از خود و جهان داشته باشد يا حتى تمايزى بين خود و جهان قائل باشد. با فراگيرى زبان است كه فرد به خودآگاهى مى رسد. ساختارهاى زبان به فرد كمك مى كند تا مفاهيم را طبقه بندى كند، از هم تميز دهد و بشناسد.

اما در اين جا خللى هست. ساختار زبان نمى تواند همه ى حالات و نيازهاى يك موجود زنده را منعكس كند، بلكه هميشه برخى از اين حالات و نيازها خارج از مفاهيم و طبقه بندى هاى زبان باقى مى مانند، و در نتيجه فرد نمى تواند آن ها را بشناسد، زيرا تمام شناخت فرد فقط از طريق زبان حاصل مى شود.

اين گونه مى شود كه انسان احساس مى كند كامل نيست، احساس مى كند نياز و اشتياق مبهمى دارد بى آن كه بتواند تعريفش كند يا انگشت رويش بگذارد، احساس كمبود و نقصان مى كند بى آن كه دليلش را بداند، زيرا در ساختار زبان جايى براى اين احساس در نظر گرفته نشده است. پس برای رسیدن به کمال مذبوحانه تلاش می کند، ولی هیچ وقت به نتیجه نمی رسد، چون خودش هم نمی داند علت اين احساس ناقص بودن چیست و دنبال چه باید باشد.

اما در اين جا اتفاقى ديگر مى افتد. فرد در تشخيص علت ناآرامى خود دچار سوء تفاهم مى شود. همچنان كه گاهى معده درد را با سوزش قلب اشتباه مى گيريم، فرد هم ناخودآگاه اين اشتياق ناشناخته را به قالبى آشنا كه در ساختار زبان تعريف شده مى ريزد، و گمان مى كند منشأ اين اشتياق ناشناخته را شناخته است. و چون ميل و اندام های جنسی از لحاظ حساسیت بالا، و فعال بودن فوق العاده شان، شبیه ترین احساس به اين اشتياق ناشناخته هستند، اغلب اين دو با هم اشتباه گرفته مى شوند و در نتيجه ى اين اشتباه، عشق به وجود مى آيد.

اما چون در حقیقت اين اشتياق ناشناخته، ارتباطى به احساس میل جنسی ندارد، عشق های جنسی همیشه به ناکامی ختم مى شوند، همچنان كه هر تلاش ديگر براى برطرف كردن آن نياز مبهم محكوم به شكست است، و انسان ضرورتاً همواره در حالت نقص و نارضايتى ابدى باقى خواهد ماند.

[Prerna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apparently, I'm really into post-structuralism. For now.

What's with the beautiful, Sean-Scully-ish covers of very short introduction books anyway? I'm really into cover porn, and I intend to read a couple more of these this year, so good for me I guess.

I surprisingly loved Catherine Belsey's writing style, I expected a very short introduction book to be a mere regurgitation of facts. But Belsey writes evocatively, adding personal quips and insightful comments while trying to trace the history of post-structuralism through a retelling of the development of Saussare's ideas by European philosophers post world war 2. By laying extra emphasis on the idea that meaning is differential and not referential, she shows that the primary aim of post-structuralism has been to look behind the symbols and signs and affirm the existence of an ever evasive real. I'm intrigued enough to look up more of her works. But, I didn't feel like this book was for a layman. It requires a basic knowledge of continental philosophy, so I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't already familiar with that.

[Deniz Cem Önduygu · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Is the author talking about linguistics now? Or politics? Or metaphysics? Oh wait, it's popular culture. No, it's ethics! Or is it psychoanalysis? Art theory? Anthropology? Or just literary criticism?"

Normally I love multi-tasking authors and theories-of-everything, but when I go through the above in just two pages, I know there's a problem there. And yet this is exactly what I feel when I read poststructuralism-related authors. (No, most of them don't like to be called "poststructuralist".) Sadly, this very short introduction suffers the same problem.

Belsey manages to be clearer than the thinkers she presents in the book, especially in Chapter 3: Difference and Desire. Despite her and my best efforts, however, in the other chapters I felt sharply oscillating between "Well, this is pretty obvious" and "Well, this doesn't make sense at all" – another feature that the book shares with the founding texts of poststructuralism.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

For me, this book did what it said on the tin. I've skirted around PS in its different forms for a while now, when dabbling in semiotics and critical theory etc, and really wanted to know a little more about 'what it's all about' without burdening myself with a loaded textbook.

It's not an easy subject. I don't believe anyone who says they find it easy. It challenges on quite a fundamental level a lot of the structures and common ideas on society and language. This book barely skims the surface. But what it is, is a menu. See what takes your fancy, and then you can pursue those lines of enquiry yourself to read further.

For me, I came away with a peeked interest in learning more about Saussure, Foucault (he sounds like fun) and Derrida (he sounds far too clever for me). It also reignited a little love affair I had with Freudian teachings a while ago.

In summary—it does contain difficult language and ideas, because it's dealing with a subject that is built upon challenging language and ideas. As short as it is, I wouldn't necessary consider it an easy read. But if I wanted that, I'd try a 'Dummies' guide.

[Paras2 · Rating 5 out of 5]

succinct and to the point, without the use of extra-difficult diction or over-complicated explanations.
a remarkable book in the series. 👌

[Jordan B Cooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another good book in this series. In some ways, the movement is too broad for summarization in such a short format. However, it is about as good as can be for what it is. The reader just probably needs to do some hefty reading following this introduction.

[Steven Forrest · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice introduction to key players and ideas, but it is confusing to follow at times and lacks a satisfactory conclusion that brings all the ideas together at the end.

[Amine · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good way to get a sort of first-hand perspective on many of the poststructuralist and adjacent ideas around language, subjects, psychoanalysis... Etc.
I think this book would've benefited or more rigid lines to structure itself around, ironically enough, although I do have some appreciation for what's been attempted with its structure, I think the book, for what it was trying to be, was all the worse for it.
That being said, my experience with it was not bad at all.

[Anya Ryazanova · Rating 5 out of 5]

It all makes sense now…

[Gavin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Way, way clearer than most books around this bog. But disgusting prose is only one of the vices of the faction, and iirc Belsey suffers from the other big one: hero worship.

[Morgan Blackledge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recent events have reinvigorated my interest in the sociocultural factors that impact our sense of well-being.

The quality and character of our national discourse has abruptly changed, and the psychological impact it has had on nearly everyone I encounter is profound.

When the dominant cultural discourse is more reflective of ones personal world view, and when the national practices and policies are progressing in the direction of ones values, and in the service of ones interests, the feeling is of basic safety and optimism, and the impulse is to (a) maintain the status quo, and/or (b) increase the rate of progress.

When the dominant discourse is hostile to ones world view, and the national practices are in opposition to ones values and and interests, the feeling is well, pretty fuckin' awful.

I don't know about y'all, but I have been feeling pretty critical lately (for better or worse) and I have been craving some critical theory to (hopefully) lend acuity to my experience of the shit storm of wounding words and ideas that have been flying around the data-sphere as of late.

I read a bunch of critical theory in college, but that was a long time ago, and I have been in a very different head space for a good long time, and I wanted a little refresher.

So what the F is poststructuralism?

Poststructuralism is an intellectual movement, defined by its critical relationship to its predecessor, structuralism (hence the name).

Structuralism was a (primarily) European philosophical and linguistics movement (one of modernities many ism's) based on the work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand De Saussure, who along with Charles Sanders Pierce (pronounced purse) founded the field of semiotics i.e. the study of signs and symbols and their use/interpretation.

Saussure is most known for his theory of 'The Sign' which differentiates symbolic language into (a) signifier and (b) signified.

A Sign refers to anything with symbolic value. e.g. a logo, word, glyph, rude hand gesture etc.

According to Saussure, signs only have meaning because we (people) collectively decide and agree that they have meaning.

For example. The word -Prince- is a sign that refers to (among other things) the American singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist and record producer known for his flamboyant stage presence, extravagant dress, makeup and wide vocal range.

The Signifier refers to a sign's physical form (such as a sound, printed word, or image) as distinct from its meaning. The signifier is in this example, the actual word 'Prince', the meaning of which is arbitrary i.e. the word has no intrinsic meaning, it's just a sound, and it can mean what ever we want it to, as long as we agree.

That particular example -Prince- was so arbitrary in fact, that the dude switched signifiers in mid career, from a word -Prince- to a freaky gender fucked squiggle, and implored us to refer to him as 'the artist formerly known as Prince. And it sort of worked.

The Signified refers to the actual thing indicated by the signifier. The signified in this example is the actual little purple dude who just recently went over the rainbow bridge to paisley paradise.

If you're familiar with Prince (or the artist formerly know as), than you may be capable of decoding (interpreting) all of these signifiers and assembling them into meaningful structures.

The fundamental question at the heart of both structuralism and poststructuralism is:

Is meaning the cause or effect of language?

If your a structuralist, your answer would be the latter.

According to structuralists, we tend to naively relate to our experience as primary, and the langue we use to describe our experiences as secondary. But the structuralists contend that the reverse is the actually case i.e. that language determines experience.

Roland Barthes was a French literary theorist, linguist and philosopher. Barthes explored a diverse range of ideas important to the inception of poststructuralism.

He's probably most know for this declaration of the 'death of the Author, and the birth of the reader.'

Premodern and early modern literary criticism assumed that it was necessary to understand the intentions of the author in order to understand the meaning of a text.

Barthes argued that this tactic closed down or institutionalized the meaning of a text, and thereby mummified it.

Barthes advocated for flexibility in interpretation of texts, and argued for a more direct experience of the text, and a more fluid and dynamic, more collective, more interactive interpretation.

Barthes argued that the readers interpretation was as valid (if not more) than the authors. Hence: the 'death of the author and the birth of the reader'.

One (embarrassing AF) example of this can be gleaned from another 90's pop-culture phenomenon (and guilty pleasure) Pearl Jam.

Their song Alive was initially conceived of as melancholy and pessimistic. But the fans interpreted the song as hopeful, and that eventually changed the meaning for everyone, including the band.

Jacques Derrida was like the rock Starr of poststructuralist critical theory. He is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction.

That's right, he's the guy who launched that meme into the noosphere. And when I say meme, I'm not talking laugh out loud cats here. I'm talking industrial strength, rip a fissure in the fabric of western thought type shit.

The deconstructavist approach entails smashing texts into bits and seeing where the meaning is. Derrida contended that the further down the meaning hole you go, the less meaning you will find. Definitions of words are made of words, which have definitions, which are made of words ad infinitum.

Deconstruction seeks to expose and subvert either/or type 'binary oppositions' that characterize thuggishly simplistic ways of thinking e.g. presence/absence, speech/writing, subject/object true/false etc.

One of my favorite pieces of graffiti could be found at the Taqueria where I used to eat when I was in high school.

It read:

"slogans limit thought"

I think think Derrida might add:

"so do binary oppositions".

Deconstructing Saussure:

Derrida ultimately criticizes the binary opposition of the signifier/signified. Derrida asserted that structuralism underestimated the primacy of written language.

Derrida asserts that writing is precisely the way we make (construct) sense. And apparently dollars to if you consider the art of the deal.

These arguments are particularly interesting in light of American constitutional law and politics.

One side wants to claim to understand the intentions of the framers of the constitution, and rigidly adhere to them. But only when it serves their interests. The other side of interprets the text as fluid, dynamic and evolving. But only when it serves their interests.

This seemingly frivolous battles over the meaning of texts have real world implications.

It feels worthwhile to resurrect the corpse of critical theory, in order to lift is the fog from the battlefield and sharpen the sword. If nothing else it's fun to precisely articulate The fact that the emperor has no clothes, save for his line of branded ties.

Significant influences on poststructuralism include Marxism, psychoanalysis and existential philosophy and phenomenology.

Important poststructuralist authors include Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, and Jean Baudrillard. They all critiqued aspects of structuralism and were considered to comprise poststructuralism's pantheon of heavyosity, although many of them rejected the moniker.

That's a pretty fussy crowd and I would expect nothing less.

Poststructuralist's created constructs and language to deconstruct language. In so doing they stumbled on to some deep territory just beyond the reach of language.

The thing the poststructuralist's were trying to do with language and thought i.e. disassemble the masters house with the masters own tools, seems quixotic but is actually quite important.

Critical theory pushed up against the edge of 3rd person perspectives, but could not surpass a certain boundary due to methodological constraints. That boundary is where the social sciences begin.

I'm a therapist.

I'm always trying to use language to deconstruct and explore an emotion, memory, idea, belief or intention.

I also have a background in the arts. In fact I was first introduced to pomo theory in art school in the 90's.

I'm very interested in the (vin diagram) zone of overlap between the humanities and the social sciences.

Therapy is as much an art form as a science. Therapy void of profundity is denatured. Therapy void of validity is effete.

European psychodynamic schools of psychotherapy are grounded in the humanities.

American cognitive behavioral schools of psychotherapy are grounded in scientific pragmatism.

Postmodern theory is like a bridge between the two worlds.

[Brenton · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is about as good as it gets for an easy introduction. I suffer as a reviewer from a twin conflicting outrage at how is seems such nonsense and yet resonates at many points. I don't think my intellectual identity crisis is Belsey's faults.

[armin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Useless shitty crap!

[N · Rating 2 out of 5]

Devoid of coherent structure, organization of ideas, contextual understanding, and conceptual connections, this is either the work of a really bad writer/communicator or a total Straussian genius inserting a meta-commentary about post-structuralism within a work on post-structuralism. It is after all the writing that writes. If I am to believe Barthes, that distinction is anyway null and void, so perhaps best to ignore it altogether. I do have a much more nuanced understanding of poststructuralism, as well as a new empathy for linguistic arguments like with LGBT pronouns. I see that now as a logical reaction under a system of beliefs that raises the importance of language above ideas and consciousness. Although it does make me wonder why we would create ungendered pronouns only for people identifying within LGBT. If the foundational argument is that there are more differences among men/women than the commonalities that we force upon them through creation of gendered terms, and that those ‘manly/womanly’ qualities are socially constructed, then shouldn’t cis-hetero-men also use ungendered pronouns, that seems like an argument no conservative could reasonably vilify?

I came at this after reading the VSI’s by Peter Singer and thinking his clarity of concept, context, and evolution of thought process were probably the hallmark of this VSI series and promptly picked up some of the topics that Wikipedia just can’t explain to me, like this one, postmodernism, critical theory etc. I was dismayed to find that Peter Singer’s lucidity was the exception rather than the norm. You’d think understanding poststructuralism might need an understanding of structuralism first. You’d be wrong. You’d think, given its emphasis on social construction, there would first be a look at the historical, political and social environments that birthed it as a philosophy and movement. You’d be wrong. This entire VSI is a garbled mess that has the stench of simple ideas presented with complexity, like the ‘irritating disciples of Derrida’ that she mentions. The ideas are complex, sure, but a little patience is enough to figure out individual passages. What’s exhausting though is finding any sort of unifying clarity of thought that links all the different passages, applications to various social institutions and beliefs, the main proponents. This is as good as a collection of Wikipedia articles on each of the main personalities of this movement, with no effort taken to understand this with the depth that it deserves, that might make the reading more than the sum of its parts.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the writing is drenched with the political leanings of the author, straw-manning of opposing points, and some really annoyingly superficial ‘You may argue..’ picking the weakest possible arguments in order to defend the point. Again, maybe I misspeak when I say author, maybe the writing itself drenches us with its fully intended political leanings. But it is very jarring to read such a hopelessly propagandizing blinkered presentation of what should be a very enlightened philosophy of skepticism, humility, personal meaning creation and radicalization. Where it isn’t jarring, it is insipid in a way that makes Yuval Harari look profound and nuanced. Take this line; In so far as the question matters at all (and perhaps in the end it doesn’t, much), my answer would be yes and no; as only a bad example. This would be a much stronger read if one ignored all parentheses altogether, where she wishy-washes her own ideas straight down the drain.

But let me tell how I really feel.

Lewis Carroll worship is still alive and kicking. Starting off Humpty’s ‘when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean’, contrasting that personal meaning with ‘words are unruly, they have a temper’ suggesting a mind of their own, and finding a mention later about how the entire dialogue is like a game, picking up from Wittgenstein’s thoughts.

What if language doesn’t originate from consciousness, instead a product of the meanings we learn? No objective reality. Ideas are not the cause, but the effect of meanings we reproduce.

Modern used as an adjective for new, but modernity has become a thing of the past – postmodern. What will post-postmodern be called?

Saussure argued that if things/concepts that language described existed outside it, then it would have exact equivalents in all languages. But why would someone in the Sahara have a word for snow, or for polar bears? Doesn’t this prove that there is an objective reality in the realm of forms that is being manifested incompletely in our realms? Either way, Saussure was instrumental. Signifier is the word/sound/image, signified is the meaning it conveys. In a foreign language, signifiers exist in isolation since we can’t understand the signified. Language creates conceptual/phonic differences that we comprehend as meaning, it wasn’t the other way around.

Barthes Mythologies: Myth converts history into nature, into a ‘human condition’. Today more myths than ever before in history (UFOs, flat earth, whatever), because bourgeoisie system has become one of silently transmitting representations of relations between humans and the world

Althusser reread the works of Marx in the light of 20th-century theoretical developments, including linguistics and psychoanalysis. In For Marx (1965) he put forward the theory that society could best be understood as working on three levels: economic, political, and ideological. Institutions like religion, media, sport, literature, and mostly education, reinforce status quo making them seem obvious

Levi-Strauss’ structural anthropology looking for universal structures embedded as motivations that individuals are not aware of. Like marriage customs dividing prohibited (incest) from permitted. Founding principle of human culture is how to convert hostility into reciprocity. Like Plato’s forms, Structuralism is seductive idea promising unifying narrative, reducing differences to superficial ‘error’ in representation, as opposed to Saussure. Saw writing as inscription of speech, therefore inferior to more natural speech, and connected with exploitation, violence.

Derrida criticized such reduction to eternals/universals. Also criticized subordination of writing. Phonocentrism, giving speech a special place due to presence, immediacy, innocence, lost in writing. He heroes writing, which continues in absence of writer, threatening Logocentrism that thinks ideas came first, then speech then writing. A pure consciousness. Derrida says thus Saussure contradicts himself. Derrida hard to read because a. European cultural references we don’t get, b. tries to be very precise and c. demonstrates in practice that language is not transparent, clear pane of glass.

Foucault the libertine radical had a very strong section in this book. Contrasting medieval public execution with modern mental institutions, saying former were more free, criminals behaving courageously often became public heroes. Space to rebel. Learning entails submission. There is no power without the possibility of resistance. Crime itself is a refusal of the law; eccentricity is a repudiation of norms; ‘vice’ is a rejection of conventional ethics. Greeks never considered themselves defined by sexual habits, so paedophilia/homosexuality would’ve been far less important in their lives. Foucault rejected Marxism as another discipline, self-proclaimed truth recruiting subjects. Similarly postmodernist Lyotard who was suspicious of grand narratives of History like Marx. Funny then why there is such a link between neomarxism and postmodernism.

Lacan reinterprets Freud through Saussure. We are born organisms, then become subjects by inculcating our culture/language. Organism becomes alienated, forced to communicate using constrained language. Something is lost here, crops up in dreams, Freudian slips. In the gap, desire is born. Perpetual condition that is unconscious, but finds expression in our projection onto temporary love-objects. Freud believed civilization was sublimation: transforming raw sexual drives into socially approved artistic creation. Lacan says everyone’s drives is made to serve civilization, like making things, teaching, writing, etc.

Zizek believes in underlying antagonism in individual manifests in particular phobias like Islamic fundamentalism or communism. Once destroyed, we will find antagonism is not gone. So totalitarianism which suppresses it, or liberal democracy that civilizes it, are both the same.

Jean-Francois Lyotard, my favorite section of the book, believes in dissension. Commitment to consensus promotes bland centrism, no challenge to status quo, intellectual inventive lateral thinking. Uses Wittgenstein to characterize dialogue as succession of manoevres. That’s why a certain pleasure in linguistic inventiveness like puns, jokes. Dislikes grand narratives like Marxist history. Prefers heterogeneity, multiplication of difference and pursuit of unknown through ‘paralogy’ a form of reasoning that breaks rules or invents new ones. Against realism, the enemy of doubt. Renaissance painters had strict 3D Geometry rules in painting. Then Dutch realism. Now photography, tv delivering ‘facts’. 20th century said truth was inaccessible, became a. modernism lamented impossibility of truth, nostalgia of lost presence, or b. postmodernism celebrating capability to create new rules, forms – working without rules to discover what the governing rules of their work will have been. Ulysses. Duchamp’s Fountain. Nazis endorsed classicism, hated avant-garde. Stalin too. Thought they had truth and wanted it to be transmitted. Avantgarde poses questions. Undermines certainty.

[Onni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helppolukuinen lyhyt johdanto poststrukturalismiin. Belsey onnistuu kuvaamaan poststrukturalistien ajattelijoiden tärkeimmät ideat selkeästi ja ymmärrettävästi. Suosittelisin tätä kirjaa kaikille, jotka haluavat perehtyä poststrukturalistiseen ajatteluun.

[Sam Nesbitt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This volume and its sister, the very short introduction of postmodernism, heavily overlap in content. I found the postmodernism volume to be more well-structured than this one, but this volume did emphasize the linguistic component a bit more.

[sobaba · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wait, it's all linguistics at the base?

[Isaac Downs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Would’ve been better if I was still angsty

[Mike Wenzel · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the very short introduction series. They are always so engaging and enlightening.

[Amira MT · Rating 3 out of 5]

ok i guess

[Joshua Loong · Rating 3 out of 5]

The general public has a very strange view about philosophy. That these academics, that focus on niche thought experiments, narrowly focused debates, and writing in jargon ladened ways, are the quintessential ivory tower intellectuals. That their work is so wholly divorced from reality and have no application to “the real world”.

Yet I think most people would be surprised to hear how influential different philosophical arguments are. Much of what the poststructuralist movement wrote about, despite it's absolutely massive impact on different intellectual strands from an academic sense, has had an outsized impact on general mainstream thought and consciousness.

The idea that norms are culturally produced, that they are reinforced by the customs, rituals, and power structures around us isn't radical anymore. In a world of social media, with ever fracturing echo chambers, this idea feels completely pedestrian. Even the conservatives who still make some universalist claims for their worldview have succumbed to post-structuralist thinking. If it wasn't, then conservatives around the world wouldn't care so much about “the culture wars”. The very existence of the war implicitly suggests that culture is a function of systems and signs, and that as the culture has shifted away from their norms, that this is a product of weaponized systems via liberals/progressive/socialists/radicals. We've accepted we are products of the structure, and that our truth is built from that foundation.

That isn't to say poststructuralism was really a single intellectual project with centralized ideas or aims. Many of the writers in this introduction wrote about similar concerns, but often differed in perspective or re-introduced identical concepts with different names. Some of them I still do not quite grasp even after reading this (Lacan I will never get you). But overall reading this is was enlightening. Many of the writers I had heard about or own books of, but never fully understood the full contours of their thought or how they fit with each other. This book is an excellent introduction to that.

This book makes me interested to read more of their work personally, but also hesitant. French theory has always been dense, jargon heavy, and often times inscrutable (lol Lacan again). Reading some of the samples underscored that latter point to me. But it's clear the indelible influence they've left on the world. From intersectional politics to current conservative culture war wagers, these writers are incredibly important to understand where we are today.

[Marta D'Agord · Rating 5 out of 5]

In five chapters the author presents us the multiple post structuralism theory. From Saussure to Lyotard, including Levi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault, Barthes, Derrida, Lacan and Zizek. Sex, Art, Politics, Literature and Ethics are some of the depicted themes. Lewis Carroll's dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty and the case of Abel's gender changing confronts the idea of meaning as given in advance. After poststructuralism, meanings are not given, but can be changed or deconstructed. Post structuralism doesn't deprive us of the power to change. Power is movable. There are conflicts and we choose sides. Derrida's last works are about Ethics in a world without foundation truths. Saussure's concept of signifier is the basis of differance (not difference) guiding the idea of a world without foundation truths. Although Reason and the laws of nature can be taken as new forms of metaphysical foundations. Poststructuralism theory thinks there is no ultimate absolute reality. If value emanate from language and Language divides the world differently from culture to culture. Then, no appeal to a grounding reality. That is the question of XXI century: values can change, since values are different from themselves. This idea comes from Saussure's signifiers as difference. And lacanian Psychoanalysis is in debt with Saussure as difference is central: desire is always unconscious; the first object is always lost to the subject. The mother is not a person, but a structural position. This maternal love object is lost in the Real. From which the world of signifiers severs us.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought, a few years later, with a better working idea of the topic, this might be better than I remembered it but here were are with the same *** (and tbh, it's more a **1/2)

It's clearly slightly dated but that's not a huge issue outside of it's notion of Marxism as something we'd obviously see as a dubious and discredited line of ideas. It trends, however, toward explaining why figures like Althusser were obviously wrong about Marxism in a very... structuralist sort of manner, it feels like?

It also, in dealing with a difficult subject, can't always find obvious throughlines between it's subjects and shortchanges a few figures worth further coverage in the book.

Ultimately, as someone who now knows broadly about the subject, this actually was maybe slightly worse then when I approached it knowing little. Oh well!

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is difficult to do a short introduction on poststructuralism but this very short introduction is better than some of the other subjects in the series I have read, and much better than the godawful introduction to postmodernism Oxford inexplicably allowed. One of the problems with this subject is it assumes you know something about a number of other subjects before you even read it, like feminism, psychoanalysis, Marxism, literary criticism etc. etc., but despite the fact that the author could have written more detail, this being one of the shorter entries in even this short series, it still is a pretty good introduction.

[Cody Bivins-Starr · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pure sardonic academic casserole, with little to no proof of the pudding, as it were, of poststructuralism as a legitimate discipline. The merging of theorists under the category, many of whom reject the label themselves, is a sign of the purely academic play here. I can’t imagine an author with more contempt for their readers than this, and it’s a sign of so much dominant academic discourse which only serves to further convince the managerial class and bourgeoise that they hold radical positions of any sort.

Instead, I’d just recommend reading the literature itself. Butler, Althusser, Zizek, etc. Skip this text.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

got the audiobook and listened to this on the L. I like listening to a voice with strange affect tell me things I already know. Good at showing a timeline and continuity of poststructuralism. Bad in that it has a hard on for zizek

[DoctorM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent intro to poststructural thought, complete with clear and vivid illustrations and witty explanations. A very good, straightfoward place to start if you're interested in poststructuralism.

[Montgomery I. · Rating 1 out of 5]

Update: I just read VSI Postmodernism. This book is much more accessible, better structured, self-aware and self-critical, and covers much of what is discussed in VSI Poststructuralism. I suggest reading VSI Postmodernism instead of this book.

This book gave me a hard time. I rarely have issues concentrating on what I read. The VSI on *Foucault*, for example, I *really enjoyed* reading. However, with this book, my thoughts constantly flew away. I don't think I got anything out of this book.

It strikes me that what I read is either completely trivial or nonsensical and highly speculative gibberish (sorry for making such a blunt statement). I do grant poststructuralism the "trivial" insights (at least those which we really owe to poststructuralism), as they were not so trivial after all when it's authors made their points. I do acknowledge that. However, the vast majority of the discussion does not make sense without further explanation.

There are strikingly many logical gaps and loopholes in the book. In many instances it is not even clear why the given discussion should be relevant after all. Much of it is not self exanatory and the reader has to make lots of assumption about the missing links in the chain of argument. This is highly unsatisfactory. Just because you tell an obscure story this does not imply that it bears any meaning or has any explanatory or causal power. All too often you feel like you read a book about literature studies or art.

I cannot even praise the structure of the book. We ramble from topic to topic and while I do see that the book does have a structure, I still feel quite lost.

What I disliked the most, though, is that Belsey only takes up challenges to poststructuralism, which are easy to dismiss (how convenient). This is somewhat dishonest.

This book reminds me of the VSI on Critical Theory. While Poststructuralism at least gives me some idea what poststructuralism actually might be, with Critical Theory I was completely blank at the end. However, VSI Poststructuralism is less satisfying, still, because I was not able to follow it's "logic". Much of it seems unfalsifiable by construction - because of the way it's proponents structure the stories and because of the obscurity. Yes, the book discusses how different authors disagree within poststructuralism, but this discussion is confusing.

If you value psychoanalysis very highly, you might like the book. Poststructuralism seems to draw much from it... As does critical theory.

My positive interpretation of all this is that poststructuralism is simply not well represented because the discussion is so shallow that is becomes a mischaracterization. I hope this really is the case, but I am by no means sure.

[Mads ✨is balls deep in the Animorphs reread✨ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really love poststructuralism because it jives a lot with my own worldview of "everything" ultimately being a bit delightfully vague and woolly and inexplicable. What are the solutions to hard consciousness and quantum gravity? Vibes and bantz actually. Turtles all the way down. C'est un pipe? No fuck you, it's a chicken.

According to poststructuralism, our identities, cultures and natures (rofl) are all realised self fulfilling processes of linguistic reference. There is nothing truly innate, and we can't "really" grasp anything "real" -- except don't forget fuck fascism and fuck the capitalist system, both of which are real, of course, SIKE!!! Yeah, poststructuralism rules!

I started listening to this audio book whilst freezing my tits off in a sleet storm on the Milford Track. After an honest to god earnest crack at listening I simply had to put it on pause. I genuinely couldn't take in the spectacular, mindboggling reality assaulting all my physical senses AND process the definition of motherfucking post-Lacanian semiotics. Those are distinctly mutually exclusive activities -- at least, they are if you don't also accept a strong likelihood of becoming so bamboozled on all fronts that you topple into a river in spate and drown. Death of the thruhiker??????

It's taken me another six months to get round to finishing it, and it took focussed listening where I had nothing better to do than stare at the inside of a Beijing metro car, but I'm glad I did. I also got a lot out of listening to chapters one and two (the most conceptually tricky ones, I think) through a second time.

As a random comment -- I wish chronically online fiction / fandom communities would all read Barthes. Just once. Maybe hit ourselves on the head with Barthes until we stop with all the deranged morality discourse?

This introduction isn't for the faint of heart: it's at first abtuse and full of strange digressions, but ultimately poetic, meaningful, resonant, witty and heterogeneous -- as any self-respecting poststructuralist text should be, I guess!

[Adam Shields · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: A brief exploration of a complicated topic.

I am not adequately trained to discuss poststructuralism (or any philosophical idea.) But that is one reason that I like these Very Short Introduction books. They give an introduction to the concept so that you have a broad idea of the concept, which allows you to pursue it more fully later (or not.)

Like most of these books, the main content is about 150 pages. I listened to this on audiobook, which may not have been the best choice, but it is what I had. I did not realize when I picked it up that a new edition had been published. In something as recent as Poststructuralism, the 20-year-old 1st edition was likely dated in ways I do not understand.

The second edition has an additional chapter, and chapter 2 is expanded and chapter 3 is restructured or retitled. Overall I feel like I have a helpful introduction to the subject, but I would not attempt to try to really write about my understanding or evaluate how well the author did in the presentation. The content seemed to be clear, and there was some good humor, but that is as far as I feel like I can go.

[caption id="attachment_60367" align="aligncenter" width="300"] 1st Edition[/caption]

[caption id="attachment_60368" align="aligncenter" width="300"][image error] 2nd Edition[/caption]