As
I read through Bressler's chapter on deconstruction and structuralism there
were two quotes in particular that I felt dredged up some interesting issues
for me. First, Bressler writes that "[a]lthough the voices of other
poststructural theories, such as Cultural Poetics and Postcolonialism, are now
strongly being heard and advocated, deconstruction's philosophical assumptions
and practical reading strategies form the basis of many postmodern literary
practices" (119). Second he writes
that one of the major critiques of structuralism is that "[i]n
highlighting the various system of meaning, structuralism deemphasizes
personhood and individual texts. Critics argue that structuralism is thus
deterministic (favoring systems over events or an individual) and
ahistorical...nor does it address for dynamic aspects of cultures" (121).
What I am noticing, though is that it doesn’t really seem to be that clear.
Particularly, I think that cultural poetics and postcolonialism do spend a lot
of time working with systems and metanarratives, even if those metanarratives
are ones of the previously (or continually) dispossessed populations, fringe
cultures, etc.
I
think what is interesting about the model that Bressler is setting up
throughout the chapter (and it seems to be a trend throughout the book) is one
that delineates cultural poetics and structuralist theory as overtly focused on
system (observable, recurring trends in narrative or language, etc) and thus
lacking a nuanced understanding of reality. Meanwhile, post-structural theory
is delineated by its focus on a subject-centric, contextually or relatively
defined understanding of reality and literature. This model seems to be laid
out in a clear fashion in the two quotes above. However, I think that there are
some areas of overlap that Bressler fails to mention, particularly in reference
to the question of subject-centeredness.
Foucault is an interesting fringe case to look at to try to
question some of the statements that Bressler is making here. If the major
distinction between structuralism and poststructuralism is in
subject-centeredness (or a lack thereof) Foucault seems to lie somewhere in between.
Bressler’s model doesn’t seem to account for someone like Foucault, since he
seems to be pretty intent on developing a binary understanding of structuralism
and poststructuralism. I don’t wish to identify this case for the sake of
highlighting a gaffe on Bressler’s part – rather, I think that looking at
someone who straddles the line between structuralist and poststructuralist
theory might help to better understand either one.
A
good way of starting to talk about Foucault and the system/subject binary is to
identify him as not interested in one or the other, but rather someone who
looks closely at the vertex of the subject and socio-political systems.
Consider the concept of the episteme – for the most part, the episteme focuses
much more on the system than the subject. Within the social and cultural
boundaries that are erected, the subject has significant freedom, autonomy, and
agency, but in the end it comes back to the way that power is leveraged over
subjects and how those subjects exist within the system. The same might be said
for Althusser and the Ideological State Apparatus. In both Althusser and
Foucault emphasis is placed on a rather structuralist point concerning
individuals and their interaction with the social and cultural systems they
exist within. What matters is not the subjective experience of the individual,
but rather the way that the complex of discourses that the subject perceives as
reality “speaks through” the subject. An utterance or action in either model
(say, obeying traffic laws), is neither the subject’s own or the system’s – it
is a collaborative composition of the cultural forces that the individual is
subject as much as it is his or her own thoughts.
What
is the difference between what Foucault or Althusser is doing and what cultural
poetics and postcolonialism are trying to do? I think that cultural poetics and
postcolonialism are both interested in systems – even if those systems are ones
that indicate an instability in hegemony, and are distinct from
deconstruction’s insistence that objective meaning is impossible. While they
aren’t necessarily constructing and condoning metanarratives they are interested
in systems. Maybe it comes back to the way that systems are defined in the
second quote I introduced. A focus on systems is considered parallel to being
unable to adress “dynamic aspects of cultures”. Those don’t seem to be mutually
exclusive. They obviously inject more of the subject into the discussion than
Bressler’s description of structuralism suggests. It doesn’t seem that they fit
neatly into either category. Obviously Bressler thinks that they are more than
just derivatives of structuralism and poststructuralism (otherwise he wouldn’t
have given them their own chapters), but why does he decide to treat them as
such in this chapter? Maybe what I’m identifying is not so much a local problem
just for cultural poetics and poststructuralism -- perhaps this is aligned with
Bressler’s section on critiques of deconstruction: “deconstruction is itself
essentially establishing a metanarrative, one based on incredulity and doubt”
(122).
No comments:
Post a Comment