The Place of Post-Structuralism in Language Use, Essay Example

To understand post-structuralism better, it is necessary that we refer to the philosophical school of thought that provoked its development. The basis of post-structuralism was essentially a response to structuralism, whose main argument was that all things had-and still have as their skeleton a structure underneath the semantic level of meaning, and that the assumed structure is what constitutes that thing’s true meaning or reality. Post-structuralism developed as a response to the perspective take by structuralism, and the latter’s assumption that its system and approach to the analysis of things was significantly essentialist.

Post-structuralism posits that by all means of factuality, even in an analysis of the underlying or hidden structures, a kind of biases manifest themselves, depending on the socio-cultural, intellectual and sometimes political orientation of the analyst/examiner. For instance, to argue that the practice of the practice of charity has as its underlying structure ‘religious belief’ is both true and false depending who is making that claim. For a religious believer, it might be a relevant interpretation of the practice, but not quite so for a rich man who just gives as a courtesy gesture that society expects of his position. When Bill Gates donates to charitable projects, he is not really intent on pleasing the gods, whoever they are. So are celebrities who take on the stage to help raise funds for the Haiti earthquake victims. Image and egoism of the celebrity and wealthy could be structures that differ from the religious beliefs of a believer. Even within religion itself, the Muslim who fasts to donate might be doing as a custom of Islam, and not necessarily out of religious convictions. So how do you determine the hidden structure/principles that form the foundation of the observable behavior of ‘giving to charity?’ Structuralism assumed that the underlying principles were definite, determined and fixed. But then, it emerged that different realities are realized in different contexts. It is this failure by structuralism that post-structuralism wanted to address and in so doing, opposed its basic tenets.

Similarly, in what is basically a direct contradiction of what structuralism taught, i.e. its argument that the sign/form that represented meaning was independent and superior to what that sign represented, the signified (semantic meaning or referent). For instance, it posited that the signifier ‘car’ that is the structure that is referred to by the term, is superior to and independent of the notion or meaning that pops in one’s mind when he sees or hears about the sign ‘car’. But then, in its counterargument, post-structuralism pointed out that you cannot separate the sign ‘car’ from the idea ‘car’ that is, the two are inseparable. In addition, the sign could not exist if there was no the idea of making a car in the first place. If one looks at it critically, he will realize that what post-structuralism actually did was invert the theoretical framework of structuralism, such that they operate in opposing directions. For the latter, the sign (object) existed first before an idea was developed to express it. The former (post-structuralism) does not really attempt to emphasize the opposite- remember that it does not limit itself to a definite interpretation- but argues that it is equally possible for the idea to precede the sign; again remember, depending on the conditioning of the analyst or examiner of the sign (form or object) vs. the signified (idea or meaning). Post-structuralism’s central maxim is that you cannot separate the two as their opponents seemed to suggest. In other words, you cannot have a sign without an idea of what it refers to. One cannot exist without the other, and if one doesn’t exist, then neither does the other. Hey, what is the color of xyphote?  There is none, because nothing of the sort exists and therefore we can’t have any idea about it. But suppose a foreign object from outer space landed on earth and astronomers decided to call it ‘xyphote’? In that case, structuralism will find justification that the existence of the sign (the object xyphote) is independent since it still existed even before someone gave it meaning by way of a name. It is like the argument that the West Indies would still exist, if by another name, even if Columbus had not ‘discovered’ it, whatever that means. In reality, he did not discover anything, but chanced upon a land mass still existing prior to his adventurous voyage. So the idea ‘the West Indies’ does not add anything to the sate of the geographical space it denotes. However, an engineer can decide to design a gadget and call it ‘xyphote’! In this case, structuralism falls apart since the idea existed before the sign. It is for these reasons of the diversity of interpretations, that post-structuralism opposed structuralist approaches to analysis, and argued that the signifier and the signified are really inseparable, and meaning subject to the context in which the two are analyzed. It emphasized that you cannot have a signifier that did not signify anything at all. One of structuralism’s proponents, Jacque Derrida, argued against the structuralism’s approach that limited the search for universal means of revealing truth.  Instead, he attempted to deconstruct, or unravel and uncover the differences that existed below what was seen at the surface( Harrison, 215).

So then, what is post-structuralism? Generally, post-structuralism is understood as the rejection of the notion that there is any definite essential form that can be attributed to a given cultural product, since all products of culture by their very nature are formed, and as such artificial. Accordingly, the meaning we attach to them is equally artificial, that is ‘formed’ and conditioned by the context that influenced the formation of the product itself. In other words, you are not truly a pilgrimage until you see Mecca! Post-structuralism, therefore, is a critical approach at deconstructing (uncovering) ideas in various contexts and disciplines to pave way for more precise and accurate discourse. This approach to meaning was expanded by Foucult, in ‘History of Sexuality,’ where he argued that even gender and sexual relations are artificially contrived notions and formations and that the structuralist understanding of sexuality is both inaccurate and flawed (Belsey, 17). For instance, he argues that the concept of ‘homosexuality’ is only a recent development constructed by cultural values and norms, and dependant on different contexts and groups in society. The notions people have about it will change if it were something desirable and acceptable. So to classify and understand it as a vice is not essentially true or universal, since it is acceptable in some quarters. So according to post-structuralism, ‘vice’ cannot be pinned to what society determines as such (moral values as its structure), but on the conditioning of those regarding it as such or otherwise. The conditioning of a gay person is not the same as that of a heterosexual. Thus, post-structuralism deconstructs our understanding of ‘vice’ so as to expand its meaning and application in different situations.

Now that I mention it, I think it is imperative that we examine the concepts of construction and deconstruction of meaning, with close reference to the works of Ferdinand de Saussure in A Course in Linguistics. Construction is the process by which one gets the meaning/ determines the referent of a reference. In other words, it is deducing what the signifier means. An objectivist approach argues that meaning is based entirely on the text, that is, it is transmitted. In this case, the reader tries to grasp the idea presented by the content of the text, without subjecting it to his personal opinions or experiences. A constructivist approach arrives at meaning through interplay of negotiations between the reader and the text. As such, the reader brings some of his notions and prejudices to the interpretation of the text. And finally, a subjectivist approach disregards the text totally, and instead recreates a new meaning which could be relevant and true, but not entirely applicable to all situations. It is this last approach tends to employ what is referred to as deconstruction. Now that I mention it, it is only necessary at this point that we examine the concept of deconstruction as applied by de Saussure in linguistics.

Deconstruction is a philosophical maxim and theory of critiquing literary texts, by questioning the traditional assumptions made in regard to the certainty, truth and identity of form. Instead, it asserts that what is presented in the text could as well refer to another text, in which meaning is deciphered from the unsaid. For instance, if a text reads; “unsound leadership practices in Africa are ignored every time the continent is plagued with hunger and their leaders take their begging bowls to the West” could mean more than just begging for humanitarian assistance. It could also mean that by helping without pointing out the root cause, the West is also guilty just as much are the corrupt leaders. He also pointed out that some words can contradict their own meaning, for example when one says; “I’m not criticizing you but I think your actions were sort of….weird.” Hegel  summarized deconstruction thus: ““In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Hegel, 512).

De Saussure argued that language and language use (speech) constitute a system of forms or signs, both of which are products of the social context. He posited that language is not an innate human endowment, but rather an assimilated mechanism that a speaker develops over time (De Saussure, 302). The arbitrary nature of signs in the study of language is unraveled by a conceptual process that objects are assigned, and there is no concept to explain why some objects are given the names they possess. Neither can it be explained how a person relates the term ‘lake’ to a large body of water. Equally, there is nothing ‘elephant-like’ that provokes images of a huge animal with tusks. He further argued that there is natural principle to explain how a given sign get attached to a particular object or concept. He then concluded that language usage is entirely dependant on the speaker who perpetuates the concepts, images and sounds; it is just a voluntary means of communicating. It therefore fails the stracturalist to refer to fixed linguistic structures in an attempt to explain meaning. Instead, he viewed it as a social product constructed by the faculties of speech and the dominant conventions that have been incorporated into a given social environment, to enable speakers use that faculty. It is an agreed upon mechanism through which signs observed by individuals can be articulated to enhance communication.

In language use, the brain cannot conceive an image if it does not have any meaning. What happens is that the brain searches for the signifier or signified, until it finds entities to attach to either. If somebody asked you if you know John Sam, you could say no immediately if you have never seen or heard of him. The mind cannot find an object (signified entity) to attach to the sign ‘john Sam.’ However, if you have met him but could not remember immediately, your mind will search for the signified referent. Ever wondered why after asking a question like ‘Who was Mahatma Gandhi’ he gives an allowance before expecting an answer? It is to let the learners search in their minds an entity they could associate with the name (sign).  Some may recognize him for what he did, his origin, or position he occupied. Though I have not tried to spell out how post-structuralism helps our understanding of the world before- in the assumption that you can deduce that from its attempts to address the loopholes created by structuralism- it is shown here that it accommodates diverse interpretations, all of which could be true, and yet none more truer than the other. The student who says that Gandhi was a political leader in India is not truer than the one who says he was an activist for human rights and the liberation of India.

Thus, the link between a sound image and its meaning are entirely arbitrary, in the sense that there isn’t any universal and natural system designed to connect a sign to a given concept without the input of man. “Polite formulas, for instance, though often imbued with a certain natural expressiveness…are nonetheless fixed by rule; it is this rule and not the intrinsic value of the gestures that obliges one to use them” (De Saussure, 413). So when you say ‘thank you,’ the hearer is not pleased by the mere sound of the words, but rather by a common understanding of what they signify. If you are playing a game of chase and your playmate says ‘you are dead and finished,’ you don’t get the same meaning as you would if a criminal pointed a gun at you and said; ‘You are dead and finished.” According to structuralism, the latter meaning might be appropriate: and yet, it is equally appropriate in the first context. It is in such situations of discourse, that post-structuralism helps to widen the field of reference in the search of meaning. It seems to me that structuralism focuses on the truth of meaning per se; ignoring some elements of contextual conditioning that makes utterances both true and meaningful, regardless the composition of the signs that signify meaning. Consequently, de Saussure posited that language use and its meaning is born out of society’s needs, instead of the existence of prior concepts by which we construct words. It is the same old cliché that necessity leads to innovation. He succinctly summarized the whole idea of deconstruction when he said that “…language does not offer itself as a set of pre-delimited signs that need only to be studied according to their meaning and arrangement; it is a confused mass and only attentiveness and familiarization will reveal its particular elements.” (De Saussure 1913).  De Saussure posits that there are iconic signs and symbols that convey different meanings according to the people who use them.  He differentiates icons from symbols in that an icon is a sign that looks or sounds like its object whereby there is no connection between a symbol and its object, “its connection to its object is a matter of convention, rule or engagement between the users” (p. 117).

He describes language as “a system of signs which have meaning by virtue of the relationships they have with each other” (p. 112). To him, every symbol is made up of a signifier which is a form taken and the concept that it represents which is the signified. The two cannot be separated. There is a meaning confined to each symbol in relation to its place in a system. Symbolic language therefore exists to create meaning and these meanings could vary depending on a person’s cultural orientation.

It is left to the judgment of the speaker or hearer to deduce what is said or heard, for there has never been an absolute scientific system by which language and speech could be understood.   Nonetheless, as far as we are talking about language use, we should recognize the exception of onomatopoeic words, whose meaning is inherently attached to the sound of the signifier. For example, ‘crack’ conjures images of breaking or disintegrating, which is true in regard to its meaning.

In the Lectures on the philosophy of history, Hegel provides another perspective that makes post-structuralism relevant our understanding of the world. Like de Saussure, Hegel also argued that we construct our own meanings of texts: note that by constructing meaning you are deconstructing what the writer intended to convey. He identifies three stages of communication, the first one being mechanism where principles and organizations communicate as external objects and he compares this with reductionism.  The second stage is where meanings are understood through what he referred to as ‘chemism’ which has to do with making generalizations from language.  The third stage is the teleology stage is related to answering the ‘what’ and ‘why’ questions to merge the previous two stages into one universalized doctrine.

More often than not- and I think I’m repeating this for purposes of emphasis, readers make their own interpretations of texts, depending on preconceived ideas or experiences in relation to the subject in question. For instance, when we read about the Second World War, we create images of how destructive it might have been. A historian writing that: “The US decided the war and brought it to an end the only way it was possible to end it: an atomic inhalation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that mutated man and beast. The war came to an end, peace and calmness finally returned to Europe…..but Germany was still in ruins, more than it was at the end of the first war, before it made the mistake of triggering another war to revenge the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles.” Depending on whether you are in Germany, Japan or the US, and consequently a sympathizer of one, you will have your own judgment of history different from what the text speaks for itself.

Hegel further says that historians record what their experiences and times permitted them to witness, and were themselves influenced by the forces that influenced the history they are recording. He writes that “They simply transferred what was passing in the world around them, to the realm of representative intellect…an external phenomenon is thus translated into an internal conception; in the same way the poet operates upon the material supplied him by his emotions, projecting it into an image for the conceptive faculty” (Hegel, 1). Thus, he argued that history can be reflective, which can be interpreted outside the time span and context in which the events took place. In such a case, the reader arrives at a different interpretation, since he is not influenced by the contextual elements that acted upon the historian and conditioned his intuitions.

In conclusion, post-structuralism is a response to the failures of structuralism to account for the varied interpretation of meaning in various contexts. While structuralism attempted to assign meaning to a determined system of analysis, post-structuralism counter-argued that several structures exist below what is signified by the form of signifiers. Depending on the intellectual and socio-cultural conditioning of the reader or speaker, different meanings could be deduced. Thus, meaning is not limited to one interpretation.

By deconstruction, it is made possible to penetrate forms and examine their various meanings depending on circumstances. It contributes to discourse by expanding the scope within which language use is applied. Hegel’s philosophy highlights the biases associated with the interpretation of events that may seem fixed in meaning, such as historical events. Despite the fact that they are facts, the biasness of the historian and the reader deconstructs the original meaning by recreating what is desirable in particular contexts. In the end post-structuralism helps our understanding of the world by exploring the dynamics of language use and interpretation.

Works Cited

Belsey, Catherine. Post structuralism a very short introduction. Chicago: McGraw Hill, 2002

De Saussure, Ferdinand.   A course in General Linguistics: Boston: Duckworth And Company, 1993

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich.  Lectures on Philosophy of History: New York: Bantam Books, 1805-6

Harrison, Paul. Post-structuralism Theories London: Sage, 2006