Poststructuralism: WTF? Derrida, Deconstruction and Poststructuralist Theory Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2024
- Derrida, deconstruction and poststructuralism can all be sources of much confusion. In today’s episode of What the Theory?, I provide an overview of poststructuralism including the work of Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Judith Butler and other key figures in poststructuralist theory.
I begin by comparing structuralism and poststructuralism to see how structuralist modes of literary and cultural analysis might have informed poststructuralism. Where structuralism recognised that language was a human invention and thus flawed, it tended not to question this fact too much. Poststructuralism, however, is expressly interested in how the flaws and biases in language itself might effect our analysis and interpretation of literary, filmic and other cultural texts.
By look at the essay The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes, I explain how this notion came to be central to poststructuralism and then explore how a similar observation came to inform the work of Jacques Derrida and deconstruction, his methodology for analysing literary and philosophical texts which seeks to draw out the binaries of meaning on which they rely in order to “deconstruct” them.
After seeing how deconstruction (which, in short, might be considered “poststructuralism in practice”) can be used to analyse a film with reference to Get Out by Jordan Peele, I finally take a brief look at poststructuralist feminism to see how the work of Jacques Derrida and deconstruction in particular has informed, for example, the work of Judith Butler in her book Gender Trouble.
Further Reading
Of Grammatology by Jacques Derrida
US: amzn.to/2C4oxxu
UK: amzn.to/334eILS
Literary Theory: An Introduction by Terry Eagleton
US: amzn.to/2WzdBRR
UK: amzn.to/2PF6aai
Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction by Catherine Belsey
US: amzn.to/36oN5ze
UK: amzn.to/2oBpjPf
[The above are affiliate links. I receive a small kickback from anything you buy which, in turn, helps to support the channel.]
If you've enjoyed this video and would like to see more including my What The Theory? series in which I provide some snappy introductions to key theories in the humanities as well as video essays and more then do consider subscribing.
And, if you really like what I do here then please do check out my Patreon page where you can get your hands on copies of the scripts to all of my videos at / tomnicholas
Thanks for watching!
Twitter: @Tom_Nicholas
Website: www.tomnicholas.com
Thanks for watching all! If you’ve enjoyed this video, please do share to anyone else who you think might like! And, if you’d like to check out my Patreon, that’d be much appreciated: patreon.com/tomnicholas
Hey, it was a really interesting video! However I think I might watch it a few more times to understand that deconstruction theory! Thank you for that interesting insight ☺️
what is the differences between constructivism and post-structuralist
Aah, so this was the term for my gut feeling of 'how language might not fully gives its meaning and ideas of a person to another'
For every random thought you have at 4am, there is a philosophical theory...
Haha, you’re probably right there!
hence the quote "all men are intellectuals, but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals."
Funny i should read this at exactly four a.m.
And acid-heads are never the blindingly original geniuses they think they are in their epiphanies.
@@snackspositive Or Deleuze's: 'We are all philosophers, it's just that most of us are very bad ones.'
Tom, you always look so happy when presenting this stuff, and I want you to know, that this is very inspirational c:
100 percent! Need more of this energy in my life!
Post-structuralism and postmodernism are frequently attacked for supposedly being anti-reason anti-Enlightenment. These theories invite you to consider whether or nor your language and your ways of thinking are accomplishing what you set out to accomplish with them. Anyone truly interested in reason and truth should be not just willing but eager to consider that question. To dismiss those theories that focus on the question seems like the cowardly act of someone who suspects they won't like the answers they uncover.
I can kind of understand why those who have a knee-jerk reaction of wanting to ignore some of this stuff do so. I'm sure, at one point, I probably liked to think that I "saw through the bs" by just thinking of it as silly, overwrought academese. But, as you say, the overall advisory of skepticism towards what truth we can come to know through a linguistic and epistemological system which has clear flaws and biases is actually pretty sound.
@@Tom_Nicholas Oh, I definitely used to think of it that way. My post is, on one level, me working out my frustration with my past self!
They are. It's called analytic philosophy.
Those in favour of reason and truth already do that. The objection is not to careful use of language, but to the arrogance of those who prematurely claim that the Enlightenment project is irredeemably corrupted based on nothing more than a _hypothesis_ about language. A hypothesis, mind you, that has substantially less empirical support than the edifice they're hoping to demolish.
@@deadeaded If so, then it is an hypothesis that perhaps predates the Enlightenment notions of certainty as Plato's Allegory of the Cave applies to language too.
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that one cannot be misunderstood." - Karl Popper
But what exactly does he mean by that ? LOL!
@@thenowchurch6419 and what do you mean by asking that?
@@rw8185 Right back atcha !
@@thenowchurch6419 lol
Love Popper. His essay on paradigm shifts was seminal.
11:20 to further support the hypothesis discussed at the timestamp, the word "high" for example can also be contrasted not with "low" but with "sober" instead.
You have been blessed with outstanding talents as a presenter. But more than being simply a good voice reading from a script, you have a depth of understanding of your topic, and present it with enthusiasm. No one could ever go to sleep in one of your lectures. EXCELLENT JOB ! More, More, More ! ☺
Thank you, those are very kind words indeed!
thank you for this!! my prof makes absolutely no sense and you're a life saver.
No worries, hope it was helpful!
True indeed.
In the house of Post-structuralism/postmodernism are many mansions; while reading Roland Barthes in the original or English translation is a delight (Mythologies is an absolute joy) Derrida is one big intentional headache; his own style absolutely and intentionally produces the effect of profound ambiguity which has annoyed countless readers, so yes Tom is a rara avis indeed.
that moment, when you're about to enjoy some delicious theory, and then remember, that Derrida already ruined it for everyone
Your channel needs to blow up now! You do such a great job explaining the nuances of these post-modern movements without a hint of bias, while at the same time correctly using the overly-esoteric language deconstructionists use to make it incredibly easy for a layman like me to understand clearly.
One thing I really love with your channel, is that you always provide the source of your information, so that the viewer can go and check it out for themselves. This makes your videos really useful for helping me understand a certain topic or theory better, when writing an assignment, as I don't really have to take your word for it, because you provide the source of your info both in the video itself, and in the description. Too many channels, while really great at communicating their content, lack any real source of information, so the viewer just has to trust that they know what they are talking about. You're always very professional and academic with your content, which is why your channel is the one I resort to the most, when I want to get into a new academical topic.
Just recently stumbled across your channel. Your delivery is clear and consice. Thank you for the work you put into your videos and for presenting information in an energetic and animated way.
Great idea to frame Derrida etc. in part through discussion of the film Get Out. Just saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago & it continues to resonate! Great work and as ever, liked & shared.
Yeah, I think there’s the temptation to look at stuff like this with reference to literature but think it tends to be more engaging to do so with reference to more contemporary stuff. And thanks, I always appreciate your generous comments!
¡Viva la POUM!
I appreciate how easy it is to understand all this complex stuff through your videos. Thank you!
Thank you, really glad they've helped you out!
Thank you so much, I have been struggling to understand my Lit Theory course for weeks now, and talking to my teacher hasn't improved my understanding. None of other Lit courses have spoken about any of these thoughts or ideas, and just allowed me to analyze literature. I have always been able to understand and explain any given text, and the outcome has always been my teachers expounding my natural ability for understanding complicated literature. For whatever reason though, within the bubble of Lit Theory I feel like someone is reading stereo instructions that no one can really understand. Your video helped provide me with valuable insight, don't get me wrong I may watch it a few times to make triply sure that I understand, but it was the first time I have felt comfortable with my course and upcoming assignments in weeks.
You deserve more subscribers this channel is fantastic!
Thank you for saying so Harry, that means a lot!
Tom Nicholas is a Tom Scott doppelganger from a parallel world where Tom Scott does praxis.
I don't know how I have literally only *just* found your channel, Tom. Awesome video -- I'm gonna go watch all of them!
You are an absolute legend. It's great to just watch you while you talk too (it's hard to write that without it coming across as a little odd perhaps?), your expressions and gesticulations really add to the energy in such a positive way.
I’ve yet to read Derrida. I have watched some videos of him talking. I’ve watched countless videos about him and his ideas. This was a fantastic video from what I can judge. I’ve yet to understand how to articulate the structure in which you present your perspective but I can tell you that I enjoy it very much and will often come to your videos for summaries before I start delving in further. Thank you so much for your work! I appreciate it greatly!
You explain everything with a smiling face and so much expressions. It's so good altogether!
Very glad I stumbled upon this channel. You're going places friend. Thank you for the lovely work.
Brand new sub. Just watched the videos on structuralism and this one, some of the most accessible takes on these topics I've ever seen. Thanks!
I absolutely love your crystal clear way of articulating complex matters, as well as your passion. Thank you.
Thank you! I'm writing a paper on post structuralism in Waiting For Godot, and this came at the perfect time.
I'm in awe, with how well articulated you are. You have a gift, when it comes to getting a point across!
Once again, excellent, clear, and appreciated summary. I wish your videos were available when I tackled these ideas and texts basically on my own prior to the rise of resources like yours on the internet.
This is so helpful Tom! Thank you for all of your work making theory more accessible to all!
One of the best videos I’ve seen on this topic, well done!
It feels like with postmodernism and post structuralism there is no where else to go in terms of "moving beyond" that line of thinking. Like we have come to the conclusion that there is no objective truth or reality, so now what? In terms of visual art at least, i feel as though i am seeing a lot more work being produced that is focused on personal narrative, the communication of individual truths and experiences. Not that that hasn't been around for a long time, but it seems especially popular in contemporary society. I just wonder where we go from here. Great video! I love your work, it's always so thought-provoking.
One of the primary critiques of poststructuralism and postmodernism is that, in their scepticism towards all "metanarratives" (or, in short, totalising conceptions of the world) they tend to be quite pessimistic and, as you rightly identify, focus on small, individuals truths rather than anything that can usefully be applied to the world as a whole. Part of this was a response to the various despotic regimes of the twentieth century. I think, however, we are beginning to see a shift away from such a mode of thinking in society at large and a return to a belief that it is possible to conceive of a better world. How that might be framed theoretically, however, is perhaps beyond the ability of a single UA-cam comment to get in to!
I think in more recent times we are starting to see somewhat of an answer to this.
I would say that while a lot of works still deconstruct a lot of narratives we may have taught growing up, it seems to be followed by sincere expressions of thoughts or ideas.
They don't merely embrace the chaos like a lot of Adult Swim cartoons from the 2000s did.
This video has actually helped reshape the way I think about writing music for audience and for clients. So just wanted to say thanks from someone on the practical ends of these philosophies!
Thank you so much for this video! Philosophical paradigms always seem far too abstract for me, so I really appreciate you explaining this in such simple, easy to understand terms.
Brilliant man. Your videos are so full of energy, clear examples, explanations and visuals
I'm so glad your channel exists! I'd love to see a video about Bourdieu's habitus and Turner's liminality :)
Same here
I did my English degree at Leeds Uni in the late 90s and it was very much focused through the lens of post-structuralism. I remember the first lecture even now. It was on Death of the Author. They told us to unlearn the parroted fixed meanings of A Level English, to contextualise and ultimately disregard the canon, and to trust our own judgement and analysis. Was pretty mind-blowing. Is it still taught like this?
I study comparative literature in Germany and I‘m in my first semester and perhaps the introduction to these ideas weren‘t quite as epic as your experience yet we have covered both Barthes and the canon in a similar fashion
I study comparative literature in Germany and I‘m in my first semester and perhaps the introduction to these ideas weren‘t quite as epic as your experience yet we have covered both Barthes and the canon in a similar fashion
You're very skilled at building up information to audiences (such as myself) that are unfamiliar with these sorts of theories. The energy you bring to your explanations helped me, a person with ADHD stay focused and engaged. Incredible job!
Tom, you are a powerhouse of knowledge !! Finally, I understand this theory and it makes so much sense now. THANK YOU!!
I am really excited about your videos and the way you unfold the rather complex topics. Thanks a lot for this!
Wondering if you could do a video on Metamodernism?? as that might become a quite relevant continuation on postmodernism and especially poststructuralism!
Very bright Young man! Keep up the Noble Work, Good Sir! Your ability to explain the most complex concepts in a way easily grssped by ordinary blokes like myself is a most singular talent that demands notice.
Thank You!
Thank you, finally someone who explains it well and who speaks at a pace that hinders me from falling asleep.
This channel is pure gold keep it up mate!!! Would love to see a video about Zizek by you.
This was a very insightful and useful information for my exams, thank you for making this!
I get a real 'ah I see' moment with theories from your videos. If you have any plans for ecocriticism / Romanticism WTF's my undergrad grades will be forever grateful. 👍
Thank you! Definitely got plans to do ecocriticism at some point soon(ish). It’s something I need to do a fair bit of reading up on though as it’s a little bit fresh to me!
I'm just being cheeky asking. Your whole series is incredibly informative and easy to follow though. Hugely appreciared .
Peter Barry’s Beginning Theory is the text I turned to in my graduate Literary Theory class. Coupled with a world-class professor and study groups, I wrote one of the most difficult essays of my life. Derrida provided the tools, Marx provided the lens, Don DeLillo provided the subject of my scrutiny, and Barry, the guide (along with a Lit Theory text thicker than a 1970s LA phone book) I followed to maintain the correct path.
I’m not sure how many of your viewers are students and how many, like myself, just love the theory and practice of critical thought at this level? But, your explanation was spot-on - articulate, direct, and intuitive - delivering an accessible understanding that should be accessible by everyone with an interest in the social and cultural clashes we face every day.
Unfortunately, there is an entire segment of our society who do not or possibly cannot see the correlation between language and behavior, just as they seemingly cannot see the long-term consequences (intended or otherwise) of the obsessive pursuit of their own desires at the expense of society, itself. It’s remarkable to me, for instance, that Ron DeSantis, an American governor from the state of Florida, graduated Harvard University with a degree in History and Yale with a Juris Prudence degree, yet vilifies Crtical Race Theory as some liberal progressive attempt to “rewrite history” and “brainwash [our] kids.” There are only two possible reasons for this absurd interpretation: either Ivy League schools in America have lost the quality that made them desirable for over a century, or DeSantis somehow managed to graduate summa cum laude/cum laude, respectively, by pretense executed so convincingly that it fooled the faculties of two of our most highly respected institutions of learning.
Or, he managed to skirt the subject of theory through choice of courses. I’m not certain if that’s possible, but seems reasonable given what I know about the applications of theory in my own degree programs. The final possibility, that he’s just pandering to an audience terrified of what they call “the elites” - smart people with high levels of education, massive fortunes, and membership in some phantom cabal or another - in order to further terrorize them into a dependence upon him to save them. It’s like the Salem witch trials of the 17th century, though I’m not sure the people who started or perpetuated the myth of witchcraft were angling for political power while doing so?
The irony of the situation is not lost on me, however. The “elites” they fear, just as the Salem witches, don’t exist. There are smart people who understand society, culture, and lament their deterioration; others who are ruthless, manipulative, business people whose only goal is the accumulation of ever-greater sums of wealth through exploitation and manipulation and at the expense of society, itself; and there are politicians on a spectrum between them. The irony is that the smart people in academia are the witches, the wealthy business people, the witch hunters, and politicians, their prosecutors - the people most well-equipped to save America are the people that growing segment of the population openly fears. They trust Rupert Murdoch and the single-syllabic modes of communication they receive from people who are openly, unapologetically manipulating them straight into their own demise while the rest of us stand by shaking our heads and wondering if we’re entering an American Dark Ages by willful ignorance?
Mr Tom Nicholas, I cannot thank you enough for the explanation you gave in this video. I was really struggling to understand deconstruction and in just over 20 minutes you have taught me more than my lecturers have done in the last 8 weeks. (deconstruct that lol)
Exactly what i needed right now! Thank you very much Tom. Sending you love and virtual hugs from Indonesia. Xoxo
No worries, hope it was helpful!
ahhh i found this video during my study of judith butler and this video just drag me into another deep mystery ..... looking forward to see you talk about judith butler!!!
This is terrific. I wish you'd been one of my professors 30+ years ago when, as a 19 year-old undergraduate, I was trying to navigate this field, which felt like an ocean voyage with no compass or, indeed, destination most of the time. Maybe that was the point.
Even so, I still love it.
Thank you, Tom. This is one of your best and most illuminating videos.
BTW, yes the latter explanation of Derrida's 'There is nothing outside the Text",
(that the Text subsumes the whole rest of Reality) is the correct one; Foucalt
be damned !
Hi Tom, great content! Well done. I'm throwing my hat in the ring here and wondering if, at some point, you will do a video on Mieke Bal?
I took a course on literary criticism years ago and never understood post-structuralism, despite reading countless essays by barthes, nietszche, Derrida and others. Now I get it though. Thank you!
I'm trying to improve my English and your videos are really useful as well as being clearly and effectively argued!
Thanks for the summary! This is super helpful ☺️
That's a nice introduction!
I have a problem though. If we start from:
1) the impossibility of determining with a 100% certainty what the author meant;
following it with
2) skepticism about final or objective meaning of any text
and
3) a reader (or a critic) shifting to the role of PRODUCER of meanings in the text
then why the poststructuralist criticism of any text/discourse is not just the criticism of what a reader/critic himself MAKES of the text in question?
Brilliant and thought-provoking, as always. Thanks Tom!
I'm really not informed about any of this work but two things struck me as I watched the video.
Firstly, in countries where the language contains fewer gendered terms (e.g. Chinese), sexism is still rampant. So how much responsibility can English's gendered terms take for societal gender imbalances? Is sexism more extreme in Spain, France, and other European nations because of their language? My gut reaction is no...
Secondly, how do some of these authors deal with the irony of writing and publishing their ideas? I'm a writer by profession and sweat over word choice for hours, is that even necessary if my work is simply going to be distorted by the reader's mind?
:D
Thank you William, I appreciate you saying so!
In terms of your first point, it's as much about the conceptual dualism as the grammatical. The example of the "less" suffix perhaps sold things a little short there. I'm afraid I'm a bit of a monoglot so not able to comment in depth about other languages but I'd imagine that similar conceptual dualism exists even if there is a greater amount of "gender neutral" language.
To your second point, that irony was not lost on many of the poststructuralist scholars. Derrida went through at least a period of not allowing himself to be photographed to avoid him being fetishised as a scholarly figure over people just celebrating his ideas. Also, I spend a loooooong time stressing over word choices but, in the end, the difference between two terms actually probably doesn't matter that much!
I think there's a high risk of people putting this to relativistic use, but a lot of that may be spurious. When you get into some of Derrida's 'plays of difference' within a text - which you can do, as I have, just from the beginner's guides - you find he's having to strain the language quite a bit at times to make it say both the things he claims it does, or he even has to create neologisms. I don't say that to put him down, much less debunk him, because I think he's an incredible thinker, but just to suggest that the idea that poststructuralism means our one method of making meaning is such a metastasising web of multiple meanings that meaning becomes impossible is possibly a straw man, as well as likely containing a sort of internal contradiction. EDIT: and I'm clearly no expert, but my understanding is that Derrida's primary aim is to call the foundations of philosophical meaning making into question, specifically, although it also seems to me his work is a continuation of things like Kant critiquing pure reason, Hegel debunking the law of non-contradiction, and the Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations.
But deconstruction's not a bad reminder that there be dragons of misinterpretation for us writers everywhere, which is precisely why obsessing over word and syntax choices is often a very good idea not a futile one. Arguably, as per the Popper quote someone else posted here, one can never be entirely sure of being understood. But surely also the pleasant surprise - especially if you've bought into post structuralism at all - that can result from careful writing is that you can find you really have been understood as you intended at times, that clear communication actually, apparently, can happen.
Thank you from South Korea! I've never quite understood deconstruction before, but this video is amazing,,
I've been watching you videos for the last couple of days, superb work! I need to know if you've played The Beginner's Guide, I find that game relates to topics you've described like: Death of the author, semiotics, postdramatic theater, spectacle, and it even narrates the experiences of a games developer. Cheers!
Thank you! I haven't actually. I've heard a lot about it but haven't got around to playing it myself. Perhaps I should at some point (likely need to wait until I get a new computer though as I'm not sure my current machine would handle it very well!
i have a literary criticism final exam tmrw and this video helped so much, thank you!! :)
Thank you so much! That has really helped. I like your engaging approach, too!
This was so helpful and great. Appreciate it a lot!
Great video, excellent examples and clarity of thought.
Thank you so much, Tom, I've always kinda wondered what post structuralism was but of course never bothered to look into it. Seems like most things are really analyzed in a post structuralist way, really, except by people in lit classes.
This was indeed an interesting video!
But I still wonder about this question: if there are limits to language, if they have inherent biases and favors "binary", how can we be sure to have understood Derrida right?
Could be that we totally misunderstood him at all right?
And by the way I totally misinterpreted "Get Out" until you cleared that up :D
thank you for your positive and enthusiastic attitude
Oh I'm late! Such a good view on poststructuralism. Hey, Tom, can you recommend some sites or other resources you use to do these researches? Or tell us about your reading!
Thanks for this Tom - I always enjoy your videos. As a beginner in reading Derrida could you just elaborate on why, if language is as flawed as is suggested, we can't read any text any way we want. In other words I can see how objective certainty is removed by this approach what I can't see is how any meaning beyond the entirely subjective could ever be reached. Any thoughts would be welcomed. thank you!
I have a Lit exam later today, this is actually a godsend
I wish ( some ) my university lecturers were as clear and engaging as you are Sir!
Tom! How have I not watched these all before? Thanks so so much for this video. It is a daunting task to talk about just one of the many topics you cover. This youtube channel is a noble endeavor. Anyways. If you or the general community wouldn't mind, I have a question!
You say that poststructuralism has a foregrounding of language as a human creation. This is confusing to me. From what I know about Derrida, it seems to me that language is not at all connected to humans, in fact, the whole point is to dispel that anthropocentric, and theological notion of language (phonocentrically through speech) being a solely human phenomenon that is ultimately divine. The point is to say that speech, and writing are but species of an overall writing, something that comprehends or is the condition for language, at once the outside and the inside. To me, this arche-writing (or differance?) is the exact opposite of a "human creation" because it permeates so many things. I am interested in this for the implications that it has for languages like sign language, which for a long time were not considered to have the same qualities or accuracy of speech... anyways. Goodness that feels like a long question
Maybe this is because I only understand Derrida... or that there is a definition for language that I am unaware of.
Regardless, I really enjoyed the video. I was surprised by the in-depth analysis of Get Out. I researched it a lot after it came out and was disappointed in the lack of videos that talked about it.
Thank you very much, Tom. You actually could make sense of a very complex theory.
Excellent, I am applying for a master's degree in literature and these help solidify my understanding of these concepts, thanks!
perfectly explained! thank you so much for your efforts
This really helped a lot! Thank you! 🌸🌸
For me, as a computer scientist, the problem of the flaws of language seemed obvious early on. Sometimes I teach a beginner's course at the university and one of the first tasks for my students is to write down an algorithm to sort cards. They have to exchange their notes and execute what they receive (using their hands and some cards). The lesson here is clear: it is damn hard to be unambiguous, in fact, without context, it is impossible. As programmers, we always assume a given context (the machine, a programming language, a software library) and we never really know what is exactly (within each register, and so on) going on when the code is executed. Of course, this is not the same thing but it gives me the impression that Derrida has a point.
Hey Tom, love your videos! Super helpful. I'm trying to get a hold on literary theory for my MA, but am confused as to whether/how Roland Barthes agrees/disagrees with Derrida. Do their views oppose each other or agree (I suspect they do, but to what extent?)
Great video as usual and i thoroughly enjoyed
Thank you, always appreciate your comments!
Can not wait for the Judith Butler episode!
Love learning about these concepts!
A useful summary but light on critical analysis. Huge gaping holes can be driven through the work of Derrida, Butler and Foucault especially and similarly through the critique of this work.
amazing video, thank you very much for this introduction. I am highly looking forward to your video on Derrida. where I hope you can also discuss how he used the method of deconstruction later in life to write about ethics and politics. Are there any books you could recommend for a beginner like me in cultural studies to read too understand the larger cultural theory of Derrida?
Yes, I am hoping to make a slightly more dedicated video at some point. In terms of books, the chapter in Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory: An Introduction is a pretty good primer on this stuff which has slightly more space to expand on it all than I did here (and also Terry Eagleton doing so rather than just me!!).
In France, there is a specific kind of work in French classes, where you have to write an essay about a specific topic. The topic is usually given as a short paragraph of one or two sentences or as a short text written by a famous writer.
The passages that your teacher thinks are out of the scope with the topic are usually highlighted in red as "hors-sujet".
"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" in this context means that no interpretation can be deemed wrong as long as this was what was understood by the reader... If you brought as a student this interpretation to the text, then no one can criticise you as being out of scope, because this is what you saw and thought...
I love and appreciate your work, mind and mode of communication. Thanks Tom! The inherent self contradictions (perhaps performative contradiction?) seem plentiful here, given that you are using language to explain a way of pointing out the inadequacy of language. How is your interpretation of what Peele is doing post-structuralist, rather than ordinary smart analysis of the text and it’s meaning-which is what makes the movie so good, because Peele has deliberately crafted art that evokes those thoughts and feelings. Even if your reply is that I didn’t understand what you really mean, why would that still be important? I think it still is. Good authors and educated readers can come both to a shared sense of the story and it’s subtext or symbolism, as well as perhaps inevitable unintentional themes that exist as part of the given context, time, or just being human. To me the road many go down with postmodern philosophy is one of using reason to argue against reason. That or just wallowing in relativism. I come away from this video still thinking that way, but am open to changing my mind. By the way, curious if you have thoughts about the 1977 letter published in a major French newspaper signed by Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de Bouvoir, and Sartre, calling for the age of consent to be lowered from 15, because this would be liberating for both adults and minors? Seems like they all got something deeply and disturbingly wrong.
Oh God, my brain is ON FIRE after watching this video!! Very enlightening...
Love the Disrocker intro music. Are you into Discharge or other double beat hardcore punk?
Could I hire you as a guest speaker at my university? This makes indefinitely more sense than what we were presented with!
Was waiting for this one c: thx for the great content
Thank you, hope it lived up to expectations!
@@Tom_Nicholas It did! I like how in your conclusion you show the more pragmatic part of post structuralism via the example of the feminist deconstruction, which is a topic we all can recognize (and hopefully see the importance of it); and the story of Derrida's insult by scholars is very ironic (I'm pretty sure he felt more insulted when he was being recognized and awarded by scholars than insulted by them lol) since that last example of the binary of genre in language might result in some straight up dumb criticism, a criticism you should take as a compliment and proof you're doing a great job with your videos.
Very post structiralist if you ask me jajajaja. Great vid, will be looking forward the next one :)
Hey
I have been watching a lot of your videos lately and I am highly impressed by the way you explain complex things in highly simple and comprehensive way.
Although I have a doubt with regard to this particular video. You said that postructuralism brings our attention, which earlier was placed on the biography of the author and the social context in which the text appeared, to the text itself. I somehow find it problematic and confusing for what then is the difference between formalism and post structuralism, even though I know these two terms are as different as A is different from B. I personally feel, and please correct me if I am wrong, that Formalism brings our attention from the author to the text and postructuralism goes a step further and brings our attention to the mind of the reader. The meanings hidden in the text are irrelevant as far as poststrcturalism is concerned. It is only concerned with the meanings we as readers create.
Am I correct?
Youre like a young version of the old guy from the gadget show, and its fantastic
Great video sir, keep up the good work
Thank you for an informative and pedagogic (didactic) explanation of yet another complex concept! Can you do meta-modernism next?
Cheers Peter! I definitely want to do an "after postmodernism" video at some point covering some arguments as to what the theoretical tendency of the present might be. Might be a little while off for now though as I've got a big list to work my way through!
@@Tom_Nicholas Thanks Tom, that's great! I'm looking forward to your next videos, as always.
That was really good. Thanks for making this video.
An absolutely wonderful video on the basics! You're doing some great work here, Tom! You deserve more subscribers.
Thank you for the enthusiastic and inspirational video
Thank you, this was really interesting! 🙏
As a native french speaker, my interpretation of Derida's quote "Il n'y a pas de hors-text" is really around the way that "hors-" is used in other contexts, like "hors-scène" in theatre which designates everything that does not happen on stage, everything left out of the story.
Applying this logic to structural considerations, I would almost say that this could mean that "Il n'y a pas de hors-text" means "there is no outside-of-text" or maybe no intertextuality?
Interesting topic. So, as a person who has never been able to really pursue a higher education (I'm talking about college), I don't have a lot of jargon in my vocabulary and there are a lot of topics I may have found my way to but without realizing it's a well established (and well trod) academic topic, but I do have a tendency to wander into subjects such as this where I at least get a grasp of some of the surface level stuff.
In the last few years I've had a pet peeve about the inherent difficulties of communication, where even with the best of intentions on both sides (the person transmitting or conveying the message and the person receiving the message) problems can arise that result in a garbled message. Someone doesn't use quite the right words, or someone misinterprets those words, or maybe even both. But what frustrates me is when people become flippant about communication and stop trying to be clear -- assuming that they must be infallible and that the onus is on the receiver to decipher the message correctly. Or there are others who will assert that as a receiver they need not put any effort into understanding the message and so the onus is entirely upon the transmitter to put forth a perfect message that cannot be misunderstood.
And of course these problems compound when you have _gremlins_ tampering with the language machine. In other words, people actively trying to disrupt communication by sprinkling in confusion or misinformation. Or those who will act like an interpreter of sorts -- that instance where two people are attempting to communicate and a third person butts in to help clarify matters -- and purposefully provide a poor interpretation that introduces impertinent and extraneous information or even twists words into false information.
As a person who has often worked with language, as I quite fancied myself a "writer" in my late teens and early twenties before Work ate up all my time and energy and now I barely scribble out a story in the span of a whole year, I became quite well aware that language (English at least, but undoubtedly this is inherent to all language) is imperfect as it is an abstraction. Our thoughts have to be translated into words, and the "key" for this is reliant solely upon our personal understanding of what words means and how they must be strung together. Then that translation of our thoughts (with all the potential errors in our personal translation) is passed onto someone else who breaks the words down into what they personally have interpreted those words to represent. It's an inherently flawed system. And I strongly suspect that language only works because we are very adaptable creatures and can make corrections for small translation errors. We do it all the time -- when you hear or read a sentence and pause as you consider "what does that mean?" I believe that's our brain trying to correct for a translation error by matching various other close translations against what we've heard/read until there's a match that we deem "makes sense". It's second nature, though, so we aren't fully conscious of this process and don't give it much thought. Until we get something that we either cannot make sense of, or that when we do "figure it out" we're met with an unexpected reaction from the person we're talking.
Some really good points here and some very insightful reflections on language!
Nothing means much unless you have context, and not only does that mean the subtext that the creator may have, but the audience comes to the communication with their own perspectives. Thus communication is a creative act between creator and audience. The product is a composition where the elements come from both parties. To think that language is the basis of truth is to deny that "Chinese whispers" is a closer analogue of communication that we would like to believe. I'm a subscriber to Art Education channels, and the figurative art fundamentals show this tendency the artist trying to use the language of art to communicate with concepts rather than words. Yet, both visual concepts and words are employed in the same way. The artist chooses the elements of language most appropriate to get over what they want to communicate, relying on the audience to draw on their own frameworks of references and "get it". René Magritte's 1929 painting "The Treachery of Images" illustrates this position very clearly.
I love the way you present!
such a good video! very interesting topic!!
I have an exam tomorrow on structuralism and post structuralism but I'm already tired after studying and trying to understand structuralism so I'm off to sleep and will watch this video in the morning tomorrow before I go
Relating it with get out really helped in understanding it
Thank you, I'm really glad!
Thanks for making these videos.