Structuralism & Post-Structuralism

[More Fire for the People]

I have examined several websites on philosophy and none of them, in my opinion, give a well-defined definition of structuralism and post-structuralism. I would like someone to give me a definition of both, and perhaps their own opinion upon the two. Also, are there any alternatives to structuralism that are not post-modern?

P.S. This should be moved to philosophy, Thank You :)

[IronColumn]

"Impervious to real passions, he seeks titillation in the battles between his anaemic gods, the stars of a vacuous heaven: AIthusser -- Garaudy-Barthes -- Picard -- Lefebvre -- Levi-Strauss -- Halliday-deChardin -- Brassens... and between their rival theologies, designed like all theologies to mask the real problems by creating false ones: humanism -- existentialism -- scientism -- structuralism -- cyberneticism -- new criticism -- dialectics-of-naturism -- meta-philosophism..."
-Poverty of student life, situationist pamphlet

(you don't need to know about structuralism pre or post)

[More Fire for the People]

Wow, you just wated MySQL space. I didn't ask for your opinion unless you were going to define structuralism in a proper manner.

[RevolverNo9]

-Poverty of student life, situationist pamphlet

(you don't need to know about structuralism pre or post)

Ha!

Do not confuse Situationsit polemic (designed to - you know - shock?) with systematic intellectual opinion! Anyway at a glance, that's all bollocks coming from the Situationists: 'Lefebvre'... a very close friend of Debord, they constantly cross-fertilised each-others' ideas. Lefebvre wrote massive surveys on 'urbanism' and 'everday life' way before the Situationists. Anyway in the end Debord accused Lefebvre of plagerism and never spoke to him again!

Plus, anyone unaware of the massive debt Debord's conception of a situationist praxis owes to existentialism clearly hasn't been paying attention. Oh and there's the small matter of all those dialectics he uses?

The Situationists were radical. The above post is not.

(If I have enough time and can muster my inadequate knowledge on the subject I'll write something (though I know of course there are those here who are very well versed in the matter) - but yes there are non-structuralist approaches that are not post-modernist. Check out the great works of the humanist-Marxists, for one.)

[KalmKidd]

my opinion/definition of structuralism would be a method of sociological analysis based on the notion of human society as a network of interrelations whose patterns and significance can be analyzed as its own.

[realleft]

it is so pitiful that the so important topic invites so little attention. This actualy defines the idealogical banckrupcy we have to contend with. The debate on structalism, post-structalism, post - modernism is the need of hour as this very deviation / revisionism in the philosophy in the name of marxist theoretical analysis in the name of evolution of marxism my the most ardent(?) marxists like althusser et el. has led to the chaos and confusion we are in. The discussion is more imperetive and relevent as the author of "end of history" is now realising the folly in the logic behind neo-classicism and neo-democracy.