originofopinion
4th June 2010, 14:29
Existential Structuralism
By: "originofopinion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25036)"
Structuralism in general is the most honest way to view the world. Structuralists believe that the world is made out of relations (structures). Also the belief that every system has a structure is another important aspect. Most Structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than dialectics. These Relations are the 'real things' that are below the surface or the appearance of meaning. But to get a view of Structuralism we need to understand the structures and relations in general.
A relation (or structure) is any interaction. Michel Foucault himself described in many of his works (Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison for example): a power relation, in which he proved continually that most of our public discourses (any public institution running by a framework of laws or charters) run by power relations in individuals or groups. These power relations can be created by knowledge, wealth or strength. Throughout history these creations of power relations have changed for instance the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 18th century during the industrial revolution in which having wealth entitled you to a form of power, however Baudrillard denied power and said “power is dead” because of technological advancement in media have created simulations of power. For example, President Obama may appear in the media extremely often which gives him a sense of power, but rarely may he exercise it. Sexual relations are another prominent structure in which Foucault and Baudrillard debated on. Foucault said that sexual relations proved powerful because the activity of sex is a struggle for power. Baudrillard once again declared “sexuality is dead” because in the post-modern age, media exhibits everything in a sexual sense. This lead to Baudrillard saying that “Sexuality is everything” But if everything is sexuality and sexuality is dead, and then nothing is left. Derrida then saved the day by the discovery of Deconstructionism in which is a dissection of text and the structure of words. Now that structures are now clarified we can move towards the system and how structures play a role.
A system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. A system (by definition) is a series of relations for a relation is any interaction. Michel Foucault described the penal system as a series of power relations. The power (before the 18th century) was exerted on the body through physical pain, but after the rise of the bourgeoisie reforms were passed that changed the penal system. The mind was then the target of power because it was more “ethical”. The system can only function by relations which is a framework of our entire society. The political system of Canada is full of relations. Without power struggle in our political affairs we would remain a very conservative state. This power is need because with power comes responsibility to use it accordingly. Power in our political system comes from the people. The people transfer the power to the Parliament. From Parliament the power returns to the people in the form of whatever the people desire. This is Democracy and without the relation between the people and the government, the nation would become oppressive. Thus power relations have a huge effect on our whole system. But should we coexist with each other or submit to dialectic practice.
All relations are made out of laws, existing from practical to complex, moulding our tolerance levels. These laws cannot just be broken, they have to be dissected. For example; the relation towards a mother and a son make be that the mother is always the mother of that son, but by looking at the situation you may find the son has a different figurehead as his mother, because of this we can presume the structural law was broken, but it wasn’t. The rule applies still, but it means very little seeing how the son now sees another individual as under the mother archetype. The mother cannot change the fact that the son feels more of a connection with the new mother without changing her relation with the son to match to the new mothers. She will have to coexist with this law until it falls apart. Likewise the son will have to coexist with being between a power struggle of the two mothers. The new mother coexists with the son as she was chosen to represent the mother archetype and until the real power (the son) chooses otherwise the relation laws will remain the same. Thus brings us to our next element of structuralism: Structures, the surface and beyond.
Structures are real, we see them every day, and however they are hidden by an assortment of subjective meanings. There is no single or universal meaning, only a series of meanings to relations. Relations act as the glue that keeps things together. Without relations we would grow distant and eventually alienate our self from the world. Whether the structure is a factory worker seeing the fruits of his labour, in which Karl Marx spoke of as very important to the human emotional satisfactory. Marx said that alienation can arise from not being with the product you have produced. A Car for instance has been given a structural law; in which the car is to be driven, but dissection of this law may show that the meaning of the car for the factory worker is relatively different. The meaning of the structure is hidden and thus needs to be exposed to the worker. The worker’s meaning is then satisfied. Every being gives structure a meaning. Derrida’s Deconstructionism showed that texts are too complex and that objective meanings don’t exist within text, therefore each text is an interpretation and really has no single meaning. Instead the text has several structures in which it could be read. As for examining Structuralism I think we have made a conclusion
Structuralism is surely the most honest perspective in the world because it emphasizes the idea of a network of relations. Systems themselves are structures and without these systems our world would be highly different. Coexistence with these relations rather than change is an important first step in understand our subjective structures. A single objective meaning is not existent as for interpretations have a wide variety which means all relations can only have subjective meanings. Structuralism is an honest view of our world.
So Basically I need this Edited in Content and Grammar. I would like a belief explanation if you change any content so i may grasp the concept. :)
Thank You for Reading and Hopefully Helping. Maybe Some On can Mark ItÉ
By: "originofopinion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=25036)"
Structuralism in general is the most honest way to view the world. Structuralists believe that the world is made out of relations (structures). Also the belief that every system has a structure is another important aspect. Most Structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than dialectics. These Relations are the 'real things' that are below the surface or the appearance of meaning. But to get a view of Structuralism we need to understand the structures and relations in general.
A relation (or structure) is any interaction. Michel Foucault himself described in many of his works (Discipline and Punishment: The Birth of the Prison for example): a power relation, in which he proved continually that most of our public discourses (any public institution running by a framework of laws or charters) run by power relations in individuals or groups. These power relations can be created by knowledge, wealth or strength. Throughout history these creations of power relations have changed for instance the rise of the bourgeoisie in the 18th century during the industrial revolution in which having wealth entitled you to a form of power, however Baudrillard denied power and said “power is dead” because of technological advancement in media have created simulations of power. For example, President Obama may appear in the media extremely often which gives him a sense of power, but rarely may he exercise it. Sexual relations are another prominent structure in which Foucault and Baudrillard debated on. Foucault said that sexual relations proved powerful because the activity of sex is a struggle for power. Baudrillard once again declared “sexuality is dead” because in the post-modern age, media exhibits everything in a sexual sense. This lead to Baudrillard saying that “Sexuality is everything” But if everything is sexuality and sexuality is dead, and then nothing is left. Derrida then saved the day by the discovery of Deconstructionism in which is a dissection of text and the structure of words. Now that structures are now clarified we can move towards the system and how structures play a role.
A system is a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. A system (by definition) is a series of relations for a relation is any interaction. Michel Foucault described the penal system as a series of power relations. The power (before the 18th century) was exerted on the body through physical pain, but after the rise of the bourgeoisie reforms were passed that changed the penal system. The mind was then the target of power because it was more “ethical”. The system can only function by relations which is a framework of our entire society. The political system of Canada is full of relations. Without power struggle in our political affairs we would remain a very conservative state. This power is need because with power comes responsibility to use it accordingly. Power in our political system comes from the people. The people transfer the power to the Parliament. From Parliament the power returns to the people in the form of whatever the people desire. This is Democracy and without the relation between the people and the government, the nation would become oppressive. Thus power relations have a huge effect on our whole system. But should we coexist with each other or submit to dialectic practice.
All relations are made out of laws, existing from practical to complex, moulding our tolerance levels. These laws cannot just be broken, they have to be dissected. For example; the relation towards a mother and a son make be that the mother is always the mother of that son, but by looking at the situation you may find the son has a different figurehead as his mother, because of this we can presume the structural law was broken, but it wasn’t. The rule applies still, but it means very little seeing how the son now sees another individual as under the mother archetype. The mother cannot change the fact that the son feels more of a connection with the new mother without changing her relation with the son to match to the new mothers. She will have to coexist with this law until it falls apart. Likewise the son will have to coexist with being between a power struggle of the two mothers. The new mother coexists with the son as she was chosen to represent the mother archetype and until the real power (the son) chooses otherwise the relation laws will remain the same. Thus brings us to our next element of structuralism: Structures, the surface and beyond.
Structures are real, we see them every day, and however they are hidden by an assortment of subjective meanings. There is no single or universal meaning, only a series of meanings to relations. Relations act as the glue that keeps things together. Without relations we would grow distant and eventually alienate our self from the world. Whether the structure is a factory worker seeing the fruits of his labour, in which Karl Marx spoke of as very important to the human emotional satisfactory. Marx said that alienation can arise from not being with the product you have produced. A Car for instance has been given a structural law; in which the car is to be driven, but dissection of this law may show that the meaning of the car for the factory worker is relatively different. The meaning of the structure is hidden and thus needs to be exposed to the worker. The worker’s meaning is then satisfied. Every being gives structure a meaning. Derrida’s Deconstructionism showed that texts are too complex and that objective meanings don’t exist within text, therefore each text is an interpretation and really has no single meaning. Instead the text has several structures in which it could be read. As for examining Structuralism I think we have made a conclusion
Structuralism is surely the most honest perspective in the world because it emphasizes the idea of a network of relations. Systems themselves are structures and without these systems our world would be highly different. Coexistence with these relations rather than change is an important first step in understand our subjective structures. A single objective meaning is not existent as for interpretations have a wide variety which means all relations can only have subjective meanings. Structuralism is an honest view of our world.
So Basically I need this Edited in Content and Grammar. I would like a belief explanation if you change any content so i may grasp the concept. :)
Thank You for Reading and Hopefully Helping. Maybe Some On can Mark ItÉ