Asynchronous Activity for April 24, 2023

Reflections on Structuralism and Post Structuralism

LIT 1204

T Th 12:00-1:30

Submitted By:

Bhon Glory Jayn P. Cabilete

Submitted To:

Dr. Bea Lastimosa

Elements in the Theory of Structuralism that I Agree

Principle of Differentiation

Karl Marx contended that the humanities, including religion, philosophy, and art, are not

neutral carriers of transcendent truths but rather are the byproducts of class and market relations.

The world we live in, with its physical, social, and economical factors, is where he believes

meaning to be born and from which it then rises. Structuralism argues that not even our own

identity or awareness can be considered a starting point. They will insist it is nothing more than

the result of inert, physical forces. Sigmund Freud had considerable influence and sought to

fundamentally alter our concept of epistemology (the study of knowledge and how we acquire

it). By demonstrating that who we are as people is determined not by the obvious, meaningful

patterns of our conscious mind, but by the deep, hidden structures of our unconscious mind,

Freud sought to displace the self as the center or origin of meaning.

Therefore, according to Freud, the conscious mind cannot serve as the pivotal factor since

it, too, is the result of the unconscious. As a result, structuralists attribute meaning and truth not

to external or internal factors, but to these underlying frameworks. They attribute everything to

an underlying material structure or system. Let's take a look at what the structuralists would call

the closed system that is language's structure. According to structuralists, the only things that

give words their meaning are the interactions and distinctions between other words and the

structure of those words. Therefore, words can only function according to the principle of

differentiation; they have no intrinsic meaning.

Elements in the Theory of Structuralism that I Disagree

Celestial Realm as the Source of Meaning

According to Plato, the ultimate concept, or the substance of everything, resided in the

celestial realm, and the 'forms' were the manifestation of this idea on Earth. Ideas, in Plato's

view, were not ephemeral or insubstantial constructs of the human mind, but rather, genuine

objects with true essences. Everything in the universe may be traced back to those first forms. So

this celestial realm represents the ultimate essence and reality in Plato's theory. That's going to be

turned on its head by structuralist thinking. To structuralists, the spiritual essence or reality is not

influencing the material world. To some extent, I disagree with the idea that the material systems

and structures we encounter every day are the sole source of the metaphysical meaning we

attribute to them; after all, not everything is intended to have meaning according to the principle

of differentiation, and sometimes that meaning will even circle back to our spiritual essence and

ideology.

Elements in the Theory of Post-Structuralism that I Agree

Meanings are Not Static

When it comes to the world and our perception of it, post-structuralism casts serious

doubt. The way we talk, interact, and react to one another in a given culture is the foundation

upon which the reality we experience is built. Although post-structuralists did not advocate

relativism, they did contend that there must be more than one truth, making it impossible to

determine which is the ultimate one. They believe that there is ambiguity and conflict in
language, and that these meanings are always evolving and are not static. A central tenet of

poststructuralism is that any given media artifact—be it a film, a music video/musical

composition, or even a work of painting—can have multiple interpretations, depending on its

context, its intended audience, and the reception it receives.

Elements in the Theory of Post-Structuralism that I Disagree

Unclear Boundaries, Lacking Edges

Post-structuralists advanced structuralism by recognizing the value of differentiating

between social and cultural phenomena for the sake of analysis and comprehension.

Post-structuralists examined the fluidity of human life and the manner in which individual

distinctions account for fresh perspectives on social and cultural formations and the intricate

workings of societal structures. Now, the post-structuralist ultimate goal was to return agency to

the subject operating within the structure, while simultaneously acknowledging the ways in

which institutional power structures of dominance still wield great power over individual and

community thought and action, especially in terms of production. But to adhere to each word's

meaning based on the conditions of culture and interaction of the society would be to ruin the

pleasure of comprehending the shape of the text and would cause it to lose its moral legitimacy,

leading to an immediate separation.

My Heart is With Post-Structuralism

Post-structuralism has always been one of my favorites of thought since I

wholeheartedly agree with their theory that meanings change with time. The passage of time

comes to mind—no amount of squeezing or bending will cause it to go in reverse. As society and

the global economy make further inroads into previously uncharted territory, new meanings are

emerging. Therefore, we look at how a literary piece might be interpreted in light of other

sources or meanings. Writing a novel with post-structuralism makes me think that the reader, not

the author, takes center stage; the author's intended meaning is less important than the reader's

perceived meaning because it can never be known.