109 books
—
18 voters
Post Structuralism Books
Showing 1-50 of 755

by (shelved 25 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.24 — 36,256 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 23 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.02 — 25,250 ratings — published 1976

by (shelved 19 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.33 — 6,953 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 17 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.18 — 8,505 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 16 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.00 — 7,904 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 15 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.97 — 5,321 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 15 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.09 — 14,354 ratings — published 1961

by (shelved 14 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.26 — 3,806 ratings — published 1968

by (shelved 13 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.97 — 3,785 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 13 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.00 — 16,237 ratings — published 1981

by (shelved 13 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.11 — 7,360 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 13 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.12 — 9,531 ratings — published 1966

by (shelved 10 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.05 — 19,108 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 10 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.22 — 4,506 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 9 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.06 — 4,492 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 9 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.02 — 2,808 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 8 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.08 — 16,966 ratings — published 1957

by (shelved 7 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.14 — 2,969 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 7 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.81 — 5,778 ratings — published 1979

by (shelved 7 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.65 — 329 ratings — published

by (shelved 6 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.15 — 2,311 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 6 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.09 — 1,212 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 6 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.07 — 1,044 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 6 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.29 — 2,843 ratings — published

by (shelved 6 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.27 — 1,642 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.92 — 3,161 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.09 — 449 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.29 — 1,010 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.17 — 523 ratings — published 1990

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.02 — 1,886 ratings — published 1968

by (shelved 5 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.28 — 1,118 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.06 — 1,573 ratings — published 1967

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.99 — 76,851 ratings — published 1980

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.77 — 2,508 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.15 — 1,868 ratings — published 1990

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.83 — 1,447 ratings — published 1985

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.94 — 678 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.06 — 2,646 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.08 — 1,086 ratings — published 1992

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.24 — 2,229 ratings — published 1970

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.13 — 403 ratings — published 1992

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.09 — 1,355 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.90 — 3,115 ratings — published 1986

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.70 — 622 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.07 — 6,055 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.79 — 1,280 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 3 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.13 — 246 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 3 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.88 — 3,208 ratings — published 1985

by (shelved 3 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 4.00 — 532 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 3 times as post-structuralism)
avg rating 3.82 — 291 ratings — published 2013

“Lacan, as we have seen in our discussion of Freud, regards the unconscious as structured like a language. This is not only because it works by metaphor and metonymy: it is also because, like language itself for the post-structuralists, it is composed less of signs — stable meanings — than of signifiers. If you dream of a horse, it is not immediately obvious what this signifies: it may have many contradictory meanings, may be just one of a whole chain of signifiers with equally multiple meanings. The image of the horse, that is to say, is not a sign in Saussure’s sense - it does not have one determined signified tied neatly to its tail - but is a signifier which may be attached to many different signifieds, and which may itself bear the traces of the other signifiers which surround it. (I was not aware, when I wrote the above sentence, of the word-play involved in ‘horse’ and ‘tail’: one signifier interacted with another against my conscious intention.) The unconscious is just a continual movement and activity of signifiers, whose signifieds are often inaccessible to us because they are repressed. This is why Lacan speaks of the unconscious as a ‘sliding of the signified beneath the signifier’, as a constant fading and evaporation of meaning, a bizarre ‘modernist’ text which is almost unreadable and which will certainly never yield up its final secrets to interpretation.”
― Literary Theory: An Introduction
― Literary Theory: An Introduction

“Only emotion differs in nature from both intelligence and instinct, from both intelligent individual egoism and quasi-instinctive social pressure. Obviously no one denies that egoism produces emotions; and even more so social pressure, with all the fantasies of the story-telling function. But in both these cases, emotion is always connected to a representation on which it is supposed to depend. We are then placed in a composite of emotion and of representation, without noticing that it is potential, the nature of emotion as pure element. The latter in fact precedes all representation, itself generating new ideas. It does not have, strictly speaking, an object, but merely an essence that spreads itself over various objects, animals, plants and the whole of nature. "Imagine a piece of music which expresses love. It is not love for a particular person.... The quality of love will depend upon its essence and not upon its object." Although personal, it is not individual; transcendent, it is like the God in us. "When music cries, it is humanity, it is the whole of nature which cries with it. Truly speaking, it does not introduce these feelings in us; it introduces us rather into them, like the passers-by that might be nudged in a dance". In short, emotion is creative (first because it expresses the whole of creation, then because it creates the work in which it is expressed; and finally, because it communicates a little of this creativity to spectators or hearers).”
― Bergsonism
― Bergsonism