Structuralism
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
| This page is currently under deconstruction This page contains too many great, white, heterosexual males and not enough antiracist mathematics. Please do not edit this page if you have essentially a Issac Newtonian, mechanistic world view: if you tend to believe that reality is objective, which is to say that it exists, "out there", absolutely independent of the human observer, and of the observer’s intentions and observations, or generally have no idea what postmodernists are talking about.
|
|
Structuralism is what is commonly called a subcategory of Continental Philosophy in the self-constructed paradigm of Analytic Philosophy.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
In order to understand what isn't structuralism, and thereby what structuralism itself is, we must break the discourse down into its fundamental units and distribute them among paradigms. Roughly, there shall be four categories: (A) homosexuals with a grudge against the bourgeoisie, (1) dead linguists, (B) anthropologists, and (Z) psychoanalysis fixated with their own reflections. All these categories can be summed up in one word: Frenchiness, a label which implies the desire to reject all labels. However, like anything written by a structuralist, this is simply a preliminary work (you ain't interpreting me this way and that, fool, I ain't no text), and thus we shall be too lazy to bother breaking down the discourse.
Example of a structural argument from Roland Barthes's "Mythologies: The Gayness of Incest": to make a break implies breaking from something, and thus the break trails along that something with itself. Indeed, any justification for such a transgression shall be carried out from within the syhchronic schemata of structural relations known as our culture, and thus the transgression shall carry the transgressed along with itself. This is why I cannot find the justification historique for the possibility of total social acceptance for incest. Indeed, it is precisely because it is taboo that it is hot. So thank the homosexual gods the bourgeoisie disapprove. We shall play off their codes, for you can never break them, and engage, mother to son, Barthes to Barthes.
[edit] Why Structuralism is Dead
In Why I Am So Savvy, Jacques Derrida put the final nail in structuralism's coffin when he proved no one can be a structuralist. For Frenchiness, that is, the label which implies the desire to reject all labels, is a prerequisite to being a structuralist. Thus anyone who desires to become a structuralist ultimately fails, because in trying to ascertain Frenchiness, they do the exact opposite of what is needed to obtain it. However, a week later, Derrida deconstructed the possible/impossible binary opposition. Much confusion ensued and everyone decided it was best to leave structuralism alone, thus birthing structuralism. Did you see how I deconstructed your expectations? Mwahaha.
[edit] Reception
[edit] Criticisms of Structuralism
While structuralists do have much in common, they are a very diverse group, so it is hard to produce a sweeping criticism. Indeed, it is hard to even give a sweeping critique of a single structuralist, for their views and opinions continue to shift. Many structuralists and post-structuralists have provided and contemplated productive critiques, such as the problem of the atemporality of structuralism and the validity of its claim to being a science. These criticisms often go ignored in the English speaking world, however, because its philosophers see no point in contemplating them, for they have provide three ultimate refutations:
Sokal: "Lacan? He must be wrong, because I don't understand him, I don't understand him, I don't understand him. Foucault? He must be wrong, because I don't understand him, I don't understand him, I don't understand him. Barthes? He must be wrong, because I don't understand him, I don't understand him, I don't understand him. Saussure? He must be wrong, because I don't understand him, I don't understand him, I don't understand him."
Richard Dawkins: "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION SCIENCE AND SECULAR HUMANISM. BASTARDS. YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY. YOU WOULDN'T KNOW REASON IF IT BIT YOU IN THE FUCKING FACE. FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING MEME, IT'S A MENTAL ILLNESS! THAT'S WHY YOU QUESTION SCIENCE. YEAH. YOU'RE ILL. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS THE WORST THING OF ALL? I DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING."
Sokal and Dawkins together: "They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying! They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying! They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying! They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying! They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying! They're French! They're French! And we don't understand what they're saying!"
[edit] Advocacy of Structuralism
Michel Foucault responded to these criticisms by demonstrating their cultural contingency through the fact that in Russia, structuralism doesn't understand you. Thus it became OK again for graduates to get down and synchronically boogey. And that they did. That they did good. However, some people remain ambiguous about their opinions on structuralism, because that's the only way to look academically suave.
