Poststructuralism and the Language of Photography

I have to admit that up until now I have not really seen the difference between postmodernism and post-structuralism and indeed I have read and seen videos where the statement is made that they are really one and the same thing. I watched a video by the Dean (Tara Brabazon) of the Office of Graduate Research at Flinders University in Australia, explaining post-structuralism in a very succinct way.

Firstly post-structuralism must be seen against the relationship of structuralism.  So what is structuralism?

Structuralism is a system of meaning production that is predictable and understandable, e.g. language is a meaning mechanism. Structuralism treats language as if it were a predictable science -> semiotics (de Saussure -> units of language = arbitrary. The signifier is stabilized when it enters a meaning system. [A word only makes sense when it is used in conjunction with others, as in a sentence]. Studies how meanings are predictable and how meanings are structured. Also treats all human culture like a language.

In post-structuralism the meaning is not predictable. Meaning is not fixed. It is contingent and meaning is really unstable.

• Deconstruction (Jacques Derrida). Meaning was determined via difference (JD basically agreed with the structuralist viewpoint but argued that meaning is always deferred, in other words – never fixed).
• Meanings are only arbitrarily fixed in a particular context. Meanings are never intrinsic (built in). They are contextually determined. When the context changes so does the meaning.

Structuralism works through the binary oppositions, e.g. male/female; black/white; straight/gay.

Post-structuralists recognized the binary oppositions but also recognised the liminality (in between the binary poles is liminality or ambiguity). That instability in those spaces creates a lot of interest and political challenge. [Light bulb moment for me re liminal spaces in a more abstract than concrete sense].

For example: postcolonialism forms an interesting relationship with post-structuralism. From the structuralist perspective there is the binary opposition of: Colonizer | Colonized, which leads to the post-structuralist perspective of the postcolonial environment where there are negotiations about language, religion, tradition, faith structures, land – those debates start to become really volatile and interesting.

Deconstruction recognized the arbitrariness of meaning by inverting what Derrida described as “violent hierarchies’.

Violent hierarchies – where one pole dominates the other, e.g. everyone has assumptions about masculinity/femininity [binary pole]. Derrida argued these were in a violent hierarchy i.e. the one (masculinity) is more valued than the other (femininity). However, the relationship of women is changing – more women are working, not having children etc. – so the discussion becomes volatile and the violent hierarchy becomes unstable.

Brabazon uses the example of the terminology “same-sex marriage” to demonstrate a violet hierarchy. She states that we have become so used to the binary opposite pole of “same-sex marriage”, i.e. “different sex marriage” that we don’t even use that terminology or something similar. The violent hierarchy is so violent that we never have to use it at all. These liminal spaces create social change and social instability.

Structuralism was descriptive. It described how meaning was created, but post-structuralism is historical. It demonstrates how meaning exists and is transformed, in particular contexts. Deconstruction is a technique of inversion and meaning deferral.

Brabazon finished her short lecture with the question why should we care about post-structuralism? and proceeded to detail how post-structuralism is not only found in literature, but in other fields of study too.

1. Post-structuralism confirms there is no singular way, strategy or mode to read or understand any text, context, event or experiment. [This is a concept that I learnt when studying Criminal Law – basically there is no right or wrong answer. What counts is your reasoning and how you put your argument forward]. We need to understand the reader, audience, the context and recognize every single situation, event and text will have multiple interpretations attached to it.
2. Post-structuralism is a critique of hierarchies. It is important, as a scholar to reflect on our assumptions and make an argument in support of or against, rather than accept views of other scholars. [This is something Ariadne brought up in her latest tutorial about the essay and it helpful to be able to situate that view within a post-structuralist setting. It provides a relatable example for me].
3. Post-structuralism is disruptive. It is meant to agitate, frustrate and destabilise us. Reflection is incredibly powerful for a scholar. [Again, back to Ariadne’s recent tutorial – we need to be able to discuss why and how we agree/disagree with a theorist’s point of view].
4. Post-structuralism encourages us to engage in really productive thought experiments. To critique any assumptions about universal values or knowledge. In this paradigm, everything is unpredictable.
5. Post-structuralism applies overdetermination. “Overdetermination is an epistimology based on the argument that theory is not separated from reality and reality is not separated from theory”.  [I’m not sure I totally understand the thrust of this argument but I think I get the general gist of it].

Post-structuralism does not stop hierarchies, but does remind us there are other ways of thinking and knowing.

This video definitely warrants a few more viewings to tease out more concepts.

Bibliography

Vlog 90 – A stroppy professor’s guide to poststructuralism (2017) Directed by Office of Graduate Research Flinders University. [Online Video] At: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cblWJry_Ic (Accessed  26/07/2020).