Let us begin with structuralism. Structuralism has more than one meaning but it is often seen as grounded in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 – 1913). Saussure was primarily interested in language and language as a system of signs that express ideas and structuralism was from the start seen as intensely focused on the meaning of texts.

One of the most accessible and celebrated accounts as to how structuralism could be used in practice was provided by Roland Barthes and his account of mythologies (Barthes, 1957). Here Barthes takes a series of, for the most part, quotidian texts (e.g. the Michelin tourist guide; the Romans as depicted in film; the advertising of soap powder and detergents) and explains what we might call the latent meaning of the text. For example, in discussing the Michelin blue guide he shows that what is identified as of interest to the tourist is framed by ‘bourgeois taste’ and indeed what Barthes sees as a crass sensibility. In discussing film he shows how visual signs, such as fringes and sweat, are used to convey a sense of morality and order (or at times disorder). In discussing detergents he suggests that foams are associated with luxury.

This kind of semiotic approach fell under the banner of structuralism as it aimed at identifying the ‘deep structures’ that were thought to be common features of texts. If we go back to Mythologies the aim was to ‘decode’ the text and we are struck by the confidence with which Barthes asserts the meaning of the texts he is examining. He saw his work as the first step on the way towards a typology of signs.

However there lies a contradiction in structuralism: if words signify, and they do not correspond exactly to the objects they describe, the whole idea of deriving meaning from a text must be problematic. In fact words can only be explained by using other words. To give a practical example of this I remember a research student of mine began putting inverted commas around the word ‘learning’ in his thesis to indicate that learning had very many different meanings and that the reader should not take any of these meanings for granted. This was fine but then he began doing the same for other nouns - for example ‘teaching’, ‘progress’, ‘value’ and the later verbs such as ‘impacted’, ‘affected’, ‘mediated’. In a short space of time his text was awash with inverted commas and it was almost impossible to read. But he was right, words offer up varied meaning, they necessarily carry ambiguity. The question is if we understand the world through language how is it that we get anywhere, why are we not faced with an endless attempt to reach meaning?

This was a question taken up by post-structuralism. Post-structuralism is not itself one single coherent idea. Instead it is applied to certain ways of thinking. Indeed one difficulty with the term as it implies a clear break with structuralism when in fact the same interests in text and understanding text remained a common feature. Indeed the later work of some structuralists such as Barthes, was seen as post-structuralist.

In all post structuralism there is a concern for ambiguity (Ellis, 2014). An early point of reference was Lacan (1901-1981). Lacan was a French psychoanalysist who really did see the world as chaotic and meaning as always uncertain or ‘dispersed’. Yet we do end up making sense of the world and to varying degrees we do ‘centre’ ourselves within the chaos. How is this done? The answer for Lacan was that the child develops an illusionary sense of self. Lacan uses the metaphor of mirror; we develop a mirror on the world but we go on to take the mirror image for the real thing. This offers a corrective to the idea of the rational self at the centre of society which, to varying degrees, has informed all fields of social research post enlightenment.

The term post structuralism itself is most often associated with Derrida. (Foucualt is also described as post structuralist but not by himself – Foucault is discussed on a different page). For Derrida (1930 – 2004) there is no simple correspondence between words and objects and – all we have are an endless play of meanings. Understanding discourse then becomes core to social theory and, if we are to be truly critical, we should try break free from for a single centre of understanding and instead search for disruptive meanings or ‘deconstruction’. A second notion from Derrida is the idea of differance, by which he means that what we understand is always an act of deferring as we attempt to work through all the different possible versions of a communication, versions we ourselves construct and versions constructed by other people.

Post structuralism has been very influential in literary analysis. It has informed social research but it is difficult to translate directly into a method or methodology; its value is in having us think about meaning as uncertain and differentiated. It also invites us to critically examine texts and identify how they are shaped by dominant discourses. Post structuralism is often evoked to critique the idea that there is a unifying theory for social research.

Criticisms levelled at post structuralism are the opaque way argument is often expressed and the tendency to see the world in unnecessarily pessimistic terms. If of more cheerful disposition, we might, celebrate that we are able to impose order on chaos and be awe struck by our facility at creating a shared meaning from communication. Post structuralism is accused of nihilism by its fiercest critiques.

There are very many cases of Foucauldian analysis in social research but much less explicitly Derridian. An example below concerns language use in Ireland and issues of possession and ‘hospitality’ when dominant languages are forced on communities.

References

Barthes, R. (1959 / 1972). Mythologies (selected and translated by Annette Lavers). New York: Hill and Wang.

Elliott, A. (2014) Contemporary social theory: An introduction. Routledge, London.

Mahon, A. (2017) Derrida and the school: language loss and language learning in Ireland, Ethics and Education, 12, 2, 259-271.

If you would like a gentle introduction to Derrida: