Discussing and Comparing Post-Structuralism and Structuralism Theories

By

[Name of the Author]

Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and the Production of Culture

Structuralism and post-structuralism are dead traditions of thought. Despite the promise contained in the flower of his youth, researchers have failed to produce the revolution in understanding philosophical and social theory which once was forced. For though not transform the intellectual universe of how often sought, called our attention to problems of considerable and lasting importance. As is known, many doubt that there existed a body of thought never rational enough to be called structuralism, let alone post-structuralism, even vaguer name (Giddens, 1987). After all, most of the leading figures that usually fall under these labels have denied that it had any sense to apply these terms to their own attempts. Saussure, who is often considered the founder of structural linguistics, barely even used the term structure in his own work. There was a time in which Levi-Strauss actively promoted the cause of structural anthropology and, more generally, of structuralism, but during the latter part of his career has been more prudent to characterize their approach in this way. Perhaps Barthes was heavily influenced in his early writings by Levi-Strauss, but later moved away enough of him. Foucault and Derrida diverge radically both the main ideas of Saussure and Levi-Strauss as each other. It seems that almost completely lack the homogeneity accurate to speak of a tradition of thought defined.

But despite their diversity, there are a number of issues that arise in the works of these authors. In addition, except for Saussure, all are French and have been placed in a network of contacts and mutual influences. When used in what follows the term structuralism and post-structuralism, consider Saussure and Levi-Strauss belongs to the first category, and the other to the second. It is known that the post-structuralism is considerably loose categories that applies to a group of authors who, while rejecting certain ideas earlier structuralist thinking characteristics, while adopting some of them in their own work (Culler, 2007). Therefore, even address these issues in different ways, the following can be considered distinctive and lingering post-structuralism and structuralism: the thesis that language or more accurately, determining certain aspects of linguistics is of key importance for philosophy and social science as a whole, its insistence on the relational nature of wholes, linked to the thesis of the arbitrariness of the sign, and related. No one of these topics touch issues of importance to current social theory (Giddens, 1987). However, it cannot be said to be acceptable from the viewpoints mentioned above by numerous writers on any such issues.

Discussion

Speechless

It is known that, in their origin, structuralism was both a movement within the linguistic field as an attempt to demonstrate the importance of the concepts and methods of linguistics for a wide variety of problems of the humanities and social sciences. Saussure's distinction between language and speech can be considered fairly key idea structuralist linguistics. With this distinction, the study of the language turns away from the realm of ...