Post-structuralism & Communism

[Invincible Summer]

How has post-structuralism influenced the left? Is it incompatible with the revolutionary left? Is there anything we can learn from post-structuralism?

EDIT: In case some don't know what post-structuralism is:

Post-structuralism grew as a response to structuralism’s perceived assumption that its own system of analysis was somehow essentialist. Post-structuralists hold that in fact even in an examination of underlying structures, a slew of biases introduce themselves, based on the conditioning of the examiner. At the root of post-structuralism is the rejection of the idea that there is any truly essential form to a cultural product, as all cultural products are by their very nature formed, and therefore artificial.

[...]

Post-structuralism is importantly different from postmodernism[...] Postmodernism importantly seeks to identify a contemporary state of the world, the period that is following the modernist period. Postmodernism seeks to identify a certain juncture, and to work within the new period. Post-structuralism, on the other hand, can be seen as a more explicitly critical view, aiming to deconstruct ideas of essentialism in various disciplines to allow for a more accurate discourse

From: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-post-structuralism.htm

General practices

Post-structural practices generally operate on some basic assumptions:

• Post-structuralists hold that the concept of "self" as a separate, singular, and coherent entity is a fictional construct. Instead, an individual comprises tensions between conflicting knowledge claims (e.g. gender, race, class, profession, etc.). Therefore, to properly study a text a reader must understand how the work is related to his or her own personal concept of self. This self-perception plays a critical role in one's interpretation of meaning. While different thinkers' views on the self (or the subject) vary, it is often said to be constituted by discourse(s). Lacan's account includes a psychoanalytic dimension, while Derrida stresses the effects of power on the self. This is thought to be a component of post-modernist theory.

• The author's intended meaning, such as it is (for the author's identity as a stable "self" with a single, discernible "intent" is also a fictional construct), is secondary to the meaning that the reader perceives. Post-structuralism rejects the idea of a literary text having a single purpose, a single meaning, or one singular existence. Instead, every individual reader creates a new and individual purpose, meaning, and existence for a given text. To step outside of literary theory, this position is generalizable to any situation where a subject perceives a sign. Meaning (or the signified, in Saussure's scheme, which is as heavily presumed upon in post-structuralism as in structuralism) is constructed by an individual from a signifier. This is why the signified is said to 'slide' under the signifier, and explains the talk about the "primacy of the signifier."

• A post-structuralist critic must be able to use a variety of perspectives to create a multifaceted interpretation of a text, even if these interpretations conflict with one another. It is particularly important to analyze how the meanings of a text shift in relation to certain variables, usually involving the identity of the reader.

[...]

Post-structuralism rejects the notion of the essential quality of the dominant relation in the hierarchy, choosing rather to expose these relations and the dependency of the dominant term on its apparently subservient counterpart. The only way to properly understand these meanings is to deconstruct the assumptions and knowledge systems which produce the illusion of singular meaning. This act of deconstruction illuminates how male can become female, how speech can become writing, and how rational can become emotional.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism

[Lyev]

Well I know that Zizek considers himself heavily influenced by Lacan and pyschoanalysis, which are interlinked schools of thought. In fact, earlier today I just started reading In Defence of Lost Causes by Zizek, where he cites Lacan's influence on his Marxism and "radical emancipatory politics" about ten times within the first few pages. That's about as far as my understanding goes though.

[kalu]

First things first, comrade the wisegeek site from which you quote seems incoherent, I wouldn't recommend getting your information from there. The last part is okay, but for example the running notion in the explanation that there is an "individual reader" is contrary to most poststructuralist discourse; in fact the argument made by Derrida et al. is that there is no "reader" or "writer," reading is not an agential activity. In addition, the first link gives this chestnut: "aiming to deconstruct ideas of essentialism in various disciplines to allow for a more accurate discourse," (my emphasis) which makes me extremely wary of that author's understanding, too. Poststructuralists contest the very notions of accuracy of analysis and objectivity of a given "reality."

Post-structuralism is an unwieldy label, but I'd say some common themes of poststructuralist writers have been the critique of empiricism and the question of the Other. With regard to the first, the simple argument developed from Althusser's reading of Spinoza is that concepts do not refer to the real, they have no referents. This argument is opposed to empiricist theories that maintain we use concepts to describe "an objective reality." As Qadri Ismail puts it, however, although "world peace" doesn't have any "real" referent, we are perfectly capable of talking about it and using it as part of our political arguments. Derrida also elaborated something similar when he noted the tendency to privilege "the proximity" of speech in texts such as Rousseau's and Levi-Strauss' over "the distance" and semiotic instability of writing, which he then articulates within his deconstruction of Western metaphysical dichotomies and "the metaphysics of presence," the desire to be close to the word, for example.

The critique of empiricism has also been extended in a different direction by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, who articulate a Foucauldian theory of discourse that establishes "experience" itself as a discursively constituted category. The theory of discourse does not deny "reality" per se, but notes that reality is always already articulated within a discourse. So, to use Laclau and Mouffe's example, a brick falling might be described as "a natural event" or "an act of God," but is not immediately available to us. Furthermore, the notion of discourse abolishes the dichotomy between "mental" and "physical." Using Wittgeinstein's notion of language-game, they elucidate that "using a brick" for example in construction requires a whole set of conceptual relations that link both "linguistic" and "non-linguistic" elements. As Laclau and Mouffe put it, all discourses are material. Ultimately, the critique of empiricism is tied to other ways of conceiving the political, as for example a moment of suturing the subject (taken from Lacanian psychoanalysis) and articulation rather than an immediate given based on "a historical process," which changes our whole understanding of political organizing.

To the second theme, poststructuralism has been characterized by "a responsibility to Otherness," over a "responsibility to act," as Stephen White has noted. Meaning, poststructuralist theorists frequently identify an irreducibly heterogenous Other that has been elided or destroyed when "represented" within a dominant discourse (be careful, "the Other" does not simply mean "another person," it's a philosophical not anthropocentric term). This argument is the source of Gayatri Spivak's famous "Can the Subaltern Speak?" where she notes the example of an Indian woman who has committed sati but is prevent from "speaking" as her act is subsumed either within a "native" patriarchal discourse (performing "her loyalty and honor") or a British imperial discourse (the cry of "an oppressed brown woman"). Additionally, and to trouble the boundaries of the "poststructuralist" category, Emmanual Levinas (a phenomenologist by training) has also condemned "the sublation of the Other into the Same." The Other he sees as transcendent and "uncapturable" within our discourse; the call of the Other demands an ethical response instead. Thus, poststructuralism has something to contribute to ethics, though its political intervention remains to be fully articulated, thus why some have attempted to complement poststructuralism and its complement in political theory, agonism, with a nondogmatic Marxism.

[Meridian]

Post-structuralism is an unwieldy label, but I'd say some common themes of poststructuralist writers have been the critique of empiricism and the question of the Other. With regard to the first, the simple argument developed from Althusser's reading of Spinoza is that concepts do not refer to the real, they have no referents. This argument is opposed to empiricist theories that maintain we use concepts to describe "an objective reality." As Qadri Ismail puts it, however, although "world peace" doesn't have any "real" referent, we are perfectly capable of talking about it and using it as part of our political arguments.

People who claim we use language to describe "an objective reality" is most assuredly wrong, because of the impossibility of specifying referents without word-use. So it is nonsensical to claim there is something "not contained" in language. Language is not like a mirror reflecting "the real world"; it is a communicative tool, not a descriptive one. However, this is not just true for "concepts", this is true for every single word in human languages. Which is why all metaphysics is language misuse.

As for everything else here, it seems like baseless theory after baseless theory, graveled with unnecessary terminology. Though I must admit I have yet to read most of these theoreticians.

[Roquentin]

I know both Derrida and Marx pretty well, but sadly I have not read Derrida's Specters of Marx which would probably come as close to answering a lot of these questions as you're going to get. I know within that text he outlines several different "ghosts" of Marx that people can channel and wants to keep the "spirit" of his commitment to social justice and emancipatory politics alive and well.

In general, post-structuralism has had a pretty troubled relationship with communism given that "Structural Marxism" was what Louis Althusser always touted. Althusser saw structuralism as a way to make the principles Marx laid down in capital absolute. I don't give too much credence to that line of thought, but his work on ideological state apparatuses is better and also the impetus behind Foucault's focus on disciplinary institutions.

I've wanted to read Deleuze and Guittari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus for a while now. I don't think the two volume work is necessarily communist, but most certainly hostile towards capitalism.

[Hit The North]

Language is not like a mirror reflecting "the real world"; it is a communicative tool, not a descriptive one.

This seems like a pointlessly restrictive definition of language. Isn't it both communicative and descriptive? Isn't description an essential component of communication?

[RasTheDestroyer]

Structuralism and Marxism of course share some core assumptions, and attempts have been made to synthesize them. The most notable structuralist to do this is Althusser.

However, structuralism's method of investigation has been charged by some Marxists with being anti-dialectical (or un-dialectical). Structuralism's object of investigation are the forms of social structures; the content of those social structures is pushed out of focus. In abstracting form from content, the method aims to shed light on transhistorical features and characteristics of societies, but loses sight of the historical dynamics contained within the content that gives rise to these structures and their qualitative differences.

Post-structuralism can be understood as both deviating from some of structuralism's ideas and following the trajectory of some others. In any case, it arose in response to the limitations placed on it by its essentialism.

[blake 3:17]

What is emancipation?


Language and Materialism by Roz Coward and John Ellis is a great read if you can find it. Great on Barthes, Mao, Althusser, and Kristeva.

I have found some of Kristeva's work fairly helpful around imagining nations and national boundaries.

Foucault is good on the diagnostics, his prescriptions don't really exist. Right now I'm keen on Deleuze and Guattari, though not necessarily together. I've been reading a whole of Deleuze of late, as well as looking on commentary texts. I'll try to pull together a brief overview that socialist thinkers and activists would find useful.

Marx never had to theorize emoticons!

[blake 3:17]

I've wanted to read Deleuze and Guittari's Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Anti-Oedipus and A Thousand Plateaus for a while now. I don't think the two volume work is necessarily communist, but most certainly hostile towards capitalism.

Both Foucault and Althusser are very much concerned with institutional and architectural metaphors and analyses -- Western European and North American schools, factories, hospitals, prisons. They are both fine writers of unfreedom.

D n G are both much anarchistic, Fuck Shit UP!!!, get wasted, fuck the police etc etc Most of the people I've known in to them have been pretty timid sort of progressive academics. I have been impressed by Deleuze and his support for particular oppressed people -- someone like Negri is floating around syndicalism, Leninism, anarchism and liberalism.

Negri's stuff on Spinoza is uber mysterious -- his glosses are way more difficult than the original.

[Invincible Summer]

Lots of stuff

Oh I'm actually learning about it in school and didn't really know how to explain it so I grabbed some summaries from online. I didn't read them too carefully.

Thanks for the response, lots to think about. I'm not sure how to reply properly.

[comrademari]

i came across this: continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133225 (sorry for nonlink but i'm a new poster here)

i'm really interested in this relation between marxism and post-structuralism. if anyone has read this, or has an ebook.. let me know what you thought.

or, hell, even more thoughts on this-- consider this maybe a bump post.

maybe i'm sucking at google but i can't find a whole lot of info on this.

[blake 3:17]

or, hell, even more thoughts on this-- consider this maybe a bump post.

maybe i'm sucking at google but i can't find a whole lot of info on this.

Some of it did appear a bit clearer in the past -- a lot of the Tel Quel stuff was in direct relationship to revolutionary politics and/or situations. Language and Materialism which I referred to above saw the critique of the ideology of the subject as the crucial task for revolutionary thought. I read it 20 years on and found that claim as a bit hard to justify.

Most post structuralist stuff is pretty depoliticized these days, with some exceptions within particular intellectual disciplines -- particularly disability and children's studies. I know a fair number of people working in public health who've been positively influenced by post structuralist thinkers. They have generally come from fairly orthodox socialist/Communist/Marxist backgrounds and found the intellectual fluidity freeing and creative.