Intro to Post-Structuralism

Module by Sean Fahey

Poststructuralism Structuralists thought that culture could be understood

through some structure that binds reality and abstract ideas, for example
Foucault understood this third order as power. For example, government
manifests its material actions through acts of power. Poststructuralism critiques
this model of finding one specific unifying structure and instead are interested in
the phenomena that support those structures and create them.

What is post-structuralism? The movement after structuralism.

So what is structuralism?
Structuralism is the methodology that elements of human culture must be
understood in terms of their relationship to a larger, overarching system
or structure.
A lot of the ideas in structuralism had to do with the nature of meaning.
Ferdinand de Saussure asked how do signs make meaning? Why does my
g2 pen and debate stand say that Im a national circuit debater?
Signs are divided in two parts
o The signifier the g2 pen and laptop stand
o The signified the idea of a kid who spreads about philosophy,
extinction, and stuff
One big thing that he concluded is that signs make meaning through
difference. The laptop stand and g2 only means national circuit because
we have PF and local circuit debate to compare them to.
This conclusion is important because it suggests that we create meaning
based on our cultural experience and contact, the notion of g2 pen +
laptop stand = national circuit debater in Japan is nonsensical.
To understand the meaning of things, structuralists examined the
underlying culture and powerful ideologies Foucault was originally a
structuralist and did this with studying power.

Enter Post-structuralism
Derrida was like nah, signifiers dont point to an objective meaning or
insight about culture/power they just refer to other signs, which in turn
point to yet other signs. The g2 pen and laptop stand point to a national
circuit debater but a national circuit debater may only point to pedagogical
settings, which only refer to other signs. He described meaning as being
constantly deferred. Kinda like when we say an argument is infinitely
regressive.
Derrida also critiqued the binary thinking of structuralists like national
circuit/local circuit. He called for deconstruction of these binaries, by
exposing where the binary falls apart or shows holes. Like bid
tournaments with solely local debaters.
 Foucault argued that meaning changes over time relative to who is in
power and what their agenda is. Asking questions like how was national
circuit debate created? Who has a stake in national circuit debate existing?
What does national circuit debate say about our social psychology?
o Foucault uses this new historical outlook called a genealogy to
examine powerful institutions: mental asylums (Madness and
Civilization), prisons (Discipline and Punish), medical systems (The
Birth of the Clinic), and societal notions of sexuality (The History of
Sexuality)
o His critiques of prisons, medical systems, and sexuality are often
used in debate.
o He critiques the way the state isolates certain deviant behavior,
often behavior that opposes its authority, and uses prisons to
remove those subjects from society. Good for topics that concern
prisons or state punishment.
o From this he theorizes of this thing called biopower. Biopower is a
technology of state control to specifically control large populations;
it is the control of human bodies through state discipline. Certain
taboos pushed from powerful authorities become internalized and
people become complicit with this. He says this has happened with
the monolithic definitions of sexuality, when sexuality is probably a
more fluid entity. Like ellipses and how theory debate killed them.
Judith Butler applied post structuralism to gender studies saying that
gender is like signs and have no fixed meaning. Instead she argued that
gender is performed, to be feminine is to act in line with the signifiers of
femininity in a culture. Baby girl clothes are pink and baby boy clothes are
blue because those colors are cultural signifiers of them in Western
culture.
Jean Baudrillard argued that signs dont have any bearing on reality. He
argued that since meaning is abstract and defined by relative difference,
we dont know anything true about the world. This scares people and so
powerful institutions create a web of signs that create an illusion of
objective truth.
Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattaris arguments about ontology were very
post structuralist. They argued that people do not exist as a static subject,
instead people are constantly undergoing a process of becoming. Their
values and identity change as they experience new things.
Lots of anthro authors call for a deconstruction of the human/nature
divide that is the root cause of human violence towards the nonhuman
world, global warming, etc.

How is this used in debate?

Foucault and biopower are often used as critiques of resolutions that give
the state further control over something like prisons or medical systems.
 Butler is used in identity politics cases on issues that have to do with
gender and using deconstruction as a means by which we can achieve a
better view of gender
Baudrillard says a lot of things
DnG can be used as an answer to id pol affs because they would critique
the notion of rallying around a single static identity when identity is a
fluid entity
Ecopessimism on anthro