Given that our "ending point" today was about the result of poststructuralism, I figured that this presents an excellent opportunity to make a blog post.
I think that the result of poststructuralism- if it could be called one- is precisely that there is no result. If structuralism outlines very clearly the limits of a textual interpretation and end of a text, poststructuralism would seem to challenge those limits and that there even is an end. If everything can be read as a text, then any sort of "poststructuralist result" could also be interpreted as a text. Why, then, would the end of a poststructuralist project- since it rejects finite interpretations- BE an end in our conventional conception of it? It just seems to me that the goals of poststructuralism preclude any definitive end. This would be especially true for Derrida, but I don't know so much about other poststructuralist-termed authors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment