One phrase that really stood out in the reading from Barry was the line that made the distinction of Linguistic Anxiety being a "keynote of the post-structuralist outlook" (62). This is mentioned within the distinctions of structuralism and post-structuralism, but is alluded to throughout the reading.
In the distinctions, Barry notes major differences in origins, tone, style, attitude, and project within the two movements. In origins, he quotes Nietzche as saying that in philosophy there are "No facts, only interpretations" (61). This leads into the anxiety of language as we see on a weekly basis. In class we are always focused on interpretation of text and, as professionals, are expected to have our interpretations in line and at an acceptable level. This makes us anxious about what words we construct in our analysis of the text we read, and in class cautious of how we present our findings.
The next distinction is that of tone and style. Barry notes that post-structuralists are "urgent and euphoric" in their tone, and that they are "flamboyant and showy" with their style (61). This differs from the structuralists as they were very abstract with their style and aimed for a "scientific coolness" in tone (61). Can one be too flamboyant? Showy? Sports fans, I am pretty sure the answer here is yes. A few names come to mind: Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Dennis Rodman -- too showy for their own good. Authors want to find that happy medium of showy, flamboyant style. This search for middle ground will lead to that anxiety of presentation within our post-structuralists.
Attitude to language comes back to signs and this is where the realization of "Linguistic Anxiety comes into play. The basis here is that we do not have full control of language. Any time humans don't have full control of something we get anxious. An example: substitutes. If we are not in our classrooms, don't we attempt to make fool-proof plans to a.) keep students busy, b.) keep the subs from messing them up or altering them, c.) be as worry-free at our conference/day off as we can be? We like control...need I say more?
Finally the idea of project. The post-structuralist critic distrusts reason and believes that individuals are molded by social and linguistic forces. Nurture/nature? Interesting discussion potential here. Are we molded by society's rules or those we are taught from our parents/guardians. Not really a theory question, but something to ponder at night when the power goes out.
One last distinction between the structuralists and the post-structuralists is the apocalyptic outlook held by the posts against the edenistic outlook held by the structuralists. Without an "authoritative center" we are focused now out interpretation and it could be either positive or negative. Whose train is moving now?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem of nature v. nurture through the lens of construct is that we haven't been purely natural since we started talking - so society and genealogy are maybe not as far apart as we'd like to think.
ReplyDeleteThis means, metaphorically speaking, that Structuralists and Post-Structuralists are not nearly as far apart as they might like to think. The difference seems to be that Structuralists (according to Derrida) feel "sad, negative, nostalgic, [and] guilty" (Derrida, 118) about recognizing the loss of an "authoritative center," and Post-Structuralists are "[joyously affirming]" of a world "without truth, without origin" (118).
Teenagers often accuse adults of letting their heart die as they get older.
But, even Derrida points, in the end, to the "unnameable" and looks for a "common ground" between the two irreducible theories (119) - because most of us get to a point when we know it's time to put the game away and face life, whatever system of language we choose to construct it in.
"No facts, only interpretations" ... I loved this quote, and I always try to get my students into this frame of mind whenever we're reading a text. When I'm up in front, I do not want them to see me as the "be all end all" authority figure (Well maybe when it comes to reinforcing the fact that it's not okay to text in my classroom). What I say is my interpretation, and I want them to understand that. Maybe they will interpret the text differently because the "background info" they're bringing to the table is quite different from mine. I always tell them that if they can back up what they're saying with "textual proof," then that is perfectly acceptable. I don't want them believing whatever I say simply because I am the teacher, and I said it. Then again, when I tell them that they're receiving a 30 minute detention because they're texting in my place, they should believe it. It appears I am a Post Structuralist based on my contradictory nature.
ReplyDeleteI actually meant "classroom" and not "my place" --- wow, talk about the subconscious taking over there.
ReplyDeleteMuch of what we have been studying impresses me as a grad school game of Jumanji when it comes to the realities (or lack there of) in the use of language. We roll the verbal dice and create a fantasic world that is continually changing and beyond control. Elements of the fantastic spill over into the alternate world making an impact that is usually confusing, if not essentially negative. The lines are blurred and the game eventually becomes everything. And to what end? The players weary and want to just put it away. They can no longer control outcomes, and the game is no longer fun. It has been taken seriously far too long. Is anything studied here halting global warming, ending the senseless slaughter of people in countless locations, solving the problems of disease or famine, putting an end to economic injustice, or making any one person more noble of mind and spirit or more compassionate? I suspect not. So, yes, play a good game, but know when to put it away and go home to use all those formless words in a way that might actually count for something.
ReplyDelete