Syed Waqar Ali Shah
Structuralism is a worldview based on the idea that ‘social reality’ can be studied objectively instead of going into the subjective interpretations of any social phenomenon. It adopts ‘scientific method’ to apply to social sciences to investigate ‘general principles’ or ‘universals’ within the structure to understand reality. To a structuralist, ‘reality’ is not fragmented. It is a ‘whole’. The structuralist does not look at the world from atomistic perspective i.e. individual atoms/particles being significant than the whole. Instead, the structuralist theorist takes ‘organic view into account which takes reality as composed of ‘totality’ of individuals interrelated to each other within a system. To put it into simplistic manner, ‘an individual’ is not important; he or she is meaningful when related to society’. To study ‘reality’, structuralism bases its study on some principles such as scientificity, synchronicity, ahistoricism and universalism. Synchronic approach to the reality and language was opposed to Marxist’s diachronic view of reality which assumed the reality to be embedded in history. Structuralism promoted ‘ahistoricist view of reality which supported the view that ‘reality should be studied in given time and context. These principles were introduced by Ferdinand de Saussure – a Swiss linguist into ‘structural linguistics and incorporated into structuralist anthropology by Levi-Strauss. Saussure is considered the father of modern linguistic thought who shifted stance in linguistic studies from comparative philology and historical linguistics to the synchronic study of language. Saussure proposed that human beings are born into a linguistic system. He used analogy of ‘chess game’ for language which explains that the way the rules in the chess game decide the position of movers, and they do not have liberty to move independently; similarly the human beings are trapped in linguistic rules soon as their language acquisition begins. Like an unintelligent player of chess, the users of language will be at the mercy of a particular language which shapes their conscious ‘self. He used two French words ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ to describe this linguistic occurrence. ‘Langue’ is a French word for ‘language’ or ‘linguistic knowledge/rules/content’ whereas ‘parole’ stands for ‘speech’. Saussure developed this dichotomy to explain that users of language are trapped in ‘langue’ whereas free in ‘parole’ – the speech or performance what Chomsky discussed later on. However, Saussure argues that ‘parole’ can only be understood in terms of ‘underlying linguistic theory’. Based on Saussurean linguistics, Lacan – a psychoanalyst who stands between both structuralist and post-structuralist thought remarked that ‘subject is possible only through language.’
Additionally, Saussure attempted to understand the meaning of the linguistic sign (i.e. words) which came to be called ‘theory of signification’. The theory explains that ‘linguistic sign’ results from unification of ‘signifier’ and ‘signified’ and the relation between them is arbitrary. To put it in other way, the words are meaningful due to their mental sounds and the mental image that they stand for. We call ‘boy’ a boy because linguistic sign ‘boy’ is a signifier ‘sound image for a boy as a ‘concept’. Each language has specific set of signifiers and they produce signifieds within that particular linguistic system. English language has its own signifiers; Sindhi language has a different set of ‘signfiers’ and so on. The linguistic signs attain meaning through convention. We call ‘boy’ a ‘boy’ because of conventions. There is no natural link between the signifier ‘boy’ and signified ‘boy’. Saussure drew this argument from Plato’s Cratylus where Plato discusses nature vs. culture relationship between words and concepts through Hermogynes and Cratylus. The former argued that culture arbitrarily assigned meanings to the words whereas the latter noted that words copy the nature and have natural relationship. Saussure went with Hermogynes idea of arbitrariness and showed that linguistic sign is arbitrarily united with signifier and signified. He further developed a discipline of ‘semiology’ which relates to the study of signs functioning in a particular system. This field of semiology also known as ‘semiotics in American intellectual circles became open to phenomenologists, linguists and philosophers.
Saussure’s linguistic sign is more focused on ‘denotative aspect of meaning’ for he considered language to be a self-contained system of linguistic signs. This invoked a criticism on his theory of meaning from various language theorists and poststructuralist philosophers. Louis Hjelmslev, a Danish Linguist criticized Saussurean Langue. He worked on the promotion of langue to the level of a master system of signs that governed all sign production above and beyond that described by linguistics alone. He maintained that ‘all signs are subordinate to a Higher Principle of Organization than that of their own local system.’ According to him, linguistic signs have further dimension to study besides denotation. It fails to account for connotations’. Moreover, serious reservations were received from ‘post-structuralism which is a philosophical movement that rose in France in 1960’s as a response to structuralism. It is not to be confused with the idea that “Post-structuralism’ is ‘Anti-structuralism’. It is rather succession to and departure from ‘structuralism’. That is, it is based on the basic principles of structuralist thought and also its further extension leading to its logical conclusion. By the 1960’s, structuralism dominated the French Intellectual life and it had overthrown the prevalent views of phenomenology, Marxism and existentialism. However, ‘structuralism’ itself could not escape a blow from ‘post-structuralism’ – a new movement that was engineered by Derrida – a French Philosopher who through a philosophical strategy called “Deconstruction’ attacked on western philosophy (metaphysics) and this strategy proved to be an engine for a post-structuralist thought in Europe.
Post-structuralism as a philosophical inquiry questions the ‘stable truths’ and ‘stable structure of the linguistic sign’. As opposed to structuralism which emphasized on unification of knowledge based on ‘universals’ and ‘structures’, poststructuralism believes in ‘fragmentation of knowledge’ and ‘deconstruction of structures/universals’. Struggles over meaning, identity and power are themes of central interest to post structuralism. Various philosophers have taken part in developing poststructuralist thought including Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva to name a few. However, Derrida stands as an engineer of the movement who himself received an influence from Nietzsche – a German philosopher who believed that there is irrationality in structure. It is not possible, according to Nietzsche, to find out rational patterns in a social structure. The discourse over the time is simply constructed to maintain authority over the people. Derrida and Foucault have paid their indebtedness to Nietzsche to trigger a movement then called poststructuralism.
Poststructuralism like structuralism place the language at the center of its worldview and considers it to be the primary source of meaning as opposed to humanistic philosophies like existentialism and phenomenology which place ‘subject (human)’ as a center of meaning, action and history. Lacan, for instance, argued that ‘we do not create language, but are created by it.’ This shows that both the views hold that language precedes the humans and is the source of creating conscious ‘self’. Despite similarities between both the worldviews, they also differ to a greater extent. Derrida criticizing structuralism maintains that like all the western philosophies, structuralism also seeks to find the objective reality by placing its emphasis on ‘center of meaning’. Plato thought of metaphysical reality as a center of meaning and absolute truth. His theory of forms is an attempt to reinforce the idea. Rene Descartes considered rationality and thinking as a center of meaning through his popular maxim i.e. ‘I think therefore I am’ which reinforced the idea that ‘being’ is dependent on ‘thinking. Ontologically, presence of being is proven in relation to thinking an activity. Rousseau’s idea of ‘nature’ is call to make it center of meaning. Likewise, phenomenologists and existentialists made ‘present’ more important than the ‘lost past’ in understanding the reality. All these philosophies hold ‘center of meaning’ and retain absolute knowledge. Derrida being a poststructuralist thinker attacked ‘center’ and proposed ‘notion of non-center’. This is an equal attack on theological doctrines which consider ‘divine’ to be a center of all meanings. Following this attack on absolutism and certainty of knowledge, Derrida extended structural linguistics arguing that like the absence of absolute knowledge and truth, there is also absence of absolute meanings. There are no absolute meanings behind the words. It contradicts with Saussure’s affirmation of linguistic sign as a unitary entity composed of signifier and signified as two sides of the same sheet: Derrida like other poststructuralists sees no fixed connection between the signifier and signified. Derrida attacks dictionary to be absolute source of meanings for a word. He coined two French words ‘difference’ and ‘deference’ to explain the complexity involving meaning making process. Difference is a Saussurean concept relating to the process where the meaning of the words is constructed in relation to differences. For instance, ‘cat’ is meaningful in linguistic system not in relation to exterior reality but due to its difference with ‘dog’, ‘elephant’, ‘camel’. Cat is cat because it is not a dog. This difference makes a linguistic sign meaningful in Saussurean terms. However, Derrida extends Saussure’s theory of meaning to the extent that he points the instability of linguistic sign due to its meaning which is deferred. To rewrite it in simple words, Derrida argues that meaning of the linguistic sign not univocal and stable. The signifiers are a continuous deferment of meaning. ‘Boy’ as a signifier stands for ‘boy’ as a signified’ and the signified becomes a signifier which stands for another signified which in turn becomes another signifier standing for a signified representing another signifier and process goes on. Derrida calls this semantic process ‘continuous deferment of meaning’. Due to this continuity or postponement of meaning, Derrida and other poststructuralist linguists think that there are only signifiers in the language. Meaning is never fully present. Based on this, Derrida believes that language is slippery. Once the language enters the public domain, the speaker or the writer loses control of it as it is always open to new understandings and misunderstandings.
In addition to extension of Saussurean linguistic sign, Derrida also deconstructed the binary oppositions that prevailed in the western philosophy over the centuries. For instance, the whole philosophical discourse is based on the prejudice of the philosophers against writing over speech. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, even the modern philosophers like Rousseau considered that ‘written word’ is untruthful as actually uttered by Socrates. They believed that reality can be found through a living conversational exchange of words over various ideas. Written word can be misleading and insufficient to take us to the reality. For this idea, Derrida coined a term called ‘logocentrism’ stand for prioritizing spoken word to written. Derrida argued that this bias has misled the western philosophy to seek the reality. There are essentially no differences between the spoken and written word. Both have similar essential features. Likewise, he deconstructed all the binary oppositions (e.g. male/female, light/dark, life/death) and called them the result of cultural manipulation of power since he believed that if there exists binary opposition, there would be notion of priority of one category over the other. With his attack, there would remain no difference between structure and lack of structure thus leading to chaos and ‘end of philosophy’. Thus, his philosophical strategy ‘deconstruction’ which later became a powerful philosophical movement worked for creating a philosophical void for the coming philosophers. Deconstruction is defined as a way of readings texts such that all philosophical principles are to be dismantled. Derrida believed that there is nothing outside of the text. We are thus prisoners of discourse. And since language is constitutionally unstable, and if the language creates the ‘self then the self is constitutionally unstable’ what makes the ‘self a prisoner of language.
This articles was published before in Students’ Voice.
