Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction 1st Edition

This book is not a balanced introduction. But I'm not so sure it is possible to present this topic in a balanced way. If it weren't for the desire to destroy or at least fundamentally alter the prevailing Western mythos, poststructuralism/postmodernism wouldn't have existed - at least not in their dominant character. On page 34 the author writes:(p34) "Althusser's list of ISAs [Ideological State Apparatuses] includes religion, the family, the political system of elections and parties to choose from, the unions, the media, sport, literature and the arts, and, supremely, education. These institutions, while not homogeneous in their output, and not without internal conflict, sometimes bitter, have the effect of securing our conscious or unconscious consent to the way things are, by making them appear at best in our interests and at worst inevitable. Above all, they seem obvious." - Catherine BelseyTwo pages later she writes:(p36) "Those of us who were involved in teaching in the 1970s, when Althusser's essay on the ISAs first appeared in translation, were thrilled to learn that the education system was the main ideological apparatus. This meant that, as radicals, we had work to do on our own doorstep, instead of looking slightly out of place on other people's picket lines. The argument was the schools and universities not only eject a proportion of the young prepared to take up occupations at every level of the economic structure, but in the process of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic they also provide instruction in obedience, deference, elementary psychology, the virtues of liberal democracy, how to give orders, and how to serve the community. In short, educational institutions inculcate discipline, and the self-discipline that encourages their pupils to go out into society and `work by themselves' to maintain the status quo."- Catherine BelseyWhat seemed `obvious' to Catherine Belsey and her fellow radicals in the 70s is that these ISAs were oppressive and needed to be changed. In short, the prevailing Western mythos had to be replaced by a new mythos, with new values and new rules. But don't expect to find this brave new mythos in poststructuralism or postmodernism. These philosophies, or movements, or whatever one wishes to call them, are purely destructive. In his book "Postmodernism: a very Short Introduction", Christopher Butler wrote:"The best that one can say here, and I am saying it, is that postmodernists are good critical deconstructors, and terrible constructors. They tend to leave that job to those patient liberals in their society who are still willing to attempt to sort out at least some of those differences between truth and fantasy..." - Christopher Butler, "Postmodernism: a very short introduction", 2003 (p116)Catherine Belsey ends her short introduction by saying, "postructuralism is at once skeptical towards inherited authority and affirmative about future possibilities." (p107)I'll be even more blunt than Christopher Butler. Poststructuralism and postmodernism, in terms of politics, is for reactionary baby boomers that want to relish the challenge of authority and thrill of revolution, while deferring the assumption of such authority (by speaking of future possibilities rather than defining a new mythos) so as not to be challenged themselves by their own methods.But it's an excellent book, describing as clearly as possible in 107 pages, how we arrived here in limbo.

Serves as a nice introduction to postmodern ideas. Much much better than the horrible, god-awful Christopher Butler Intro to Postmodernism from the same series. Then again, it could hardly get any worse, but that said, this is a solid book.

French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's assertion that the relationship between a signifier (i.e., a word, symbol) and the signified (the phenomenon it describes) is arbitrary is the starting point for all forms of Poststructuralism. It reveals that language (and all signifying systems) actually create, rather describe, the world we live in. Consequently, all our understandings of the world, be they through culture, knowledge, or ideology, are artificial constructs. While Poststructuralists do not necessarily deny the existence of reality, they argue that ALL understandings of reality are shaped by the signifying systems through which we must experience and understand it. Their objective, therefore, is not to dissect language/symbols in order to discover an ultimate Truth, but rather to reveal how language and symbols create meaning/reality. Here, Catherine Belsey shows how these ideas inform the work of diverse thinkers such as Roland Barthes, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Jacques Derrida, Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Zizek, and Jean-François Lyotard.Although Poststructuralism is not necessarily political, it can been seen as "subversive" since by revealing how signifying systems create our understandings of the world, the individual learns to recognize and deconstruct the "realities" that control us. While Poststructuralism is empowering in this sense, it also has obvious shortcomings: we can no longer assert any absolutes. This leads the author to conclude that "Poststructuralism is more useful in prompting the uncertainty of questions than in delivering the finality of answers" (107).I think this work is a very good "general" introduction to the topic. For only 107 pages, I don't think anyone could expect anything more. But, for anyone already familiar with Poststructuralism, it may seem a bit superficial.

This little volumne has proven invaluable in helping me get a grasp on the complexities of post-structural philosophy. Many points of view and topics are broken down, but never watered down; the full range of the theory and its chief promoters are explained in thorough but compact detail. I highly recommend it.

Neat! A good book to start the subject. It shows the basics and tells you where to dig for more.

A cute book.

As a lover of the a.v.s.i. series of books I've come to realise that they don't have a huge amount in common in terms of their prose style. Sometimes you get crisply written, dull expositions, and other times self-indulgent, wince inducing material from someone a tad too in love with their subject to see through the fog. This effort from Catherine Belsey straddles the gap without ending up far towards either side to fall in. Whilst she introduces her material concisely and incisively, there are occasionally flourishes where her obvious passion really brings the material to life. She makes frequent use of relevant examples from literature and art to provide examples of poststructuralist modes of thought in action, so to speak. On the academic side of the coin, the intellectual heavyweights most closely associated with the structuralist and poststructuralist movements are introduced, described and rounded off with a short biography which provides some historical, sociological and psychological context to their work and life.Occasionally the narrative goes a little off piste but it's forgivable considering the nature of the beast; the ideas are often not for the faint of heart and this will take some level of commitment on the part of the reader. Many of the big thinkers involved were showing how language contorts and is contorted by the human subject. Their work embraces the ambiguity of our systems of language and often revels in its own obscurity as if to make this point. If you're completely new to formal philosophical thinking then there could be a few areas of struggle ahead. However, Belsey manages to stop things drifting off into the stratosphere with a particularly wonderful exposition of Shakespeare's 'Sonnet 18' showing how this ambiguity can serve to delight as much as frustrate.In my view this is a commendable attempt to compress and present a lot of often difficult and disparate ideas cogently, with insights compounded from fields such as sociology, anthropology, literary theory and psychoanalysis. The latter being my particular area of study, I found the material on Lacan particularly useful and well-written. All in all, a to-the-point introduction to an often obscure subject, expressed stylishly in an idiosyncratic and often creative manner. Well done!

Write your review here the book short but interesting. I want to know more books about eng.literature, literary theory n criticism poetic appreciation.

Catherine Belsey should be awarded a prize for plain writing in a complex and difficult field that is filled with convoluted and opaque prose. She even succeeds in explaining why this is so interestingly and convincingly. An excellent little book for students on the run and a good introduction to the field for the general reader.