Hello literary criticism class,
Please make sure that you provide me with your blog addresses by next Wednesday.
Class List
-
-
Postcolonialism - It is a specifically post-modern intellectual discourse that holds together a set of theories found among the texts and sub-texts of philosophy, film, poli...14 years ago
-
-
postcolonialism - Also known as theory refers to aset of theories in philosophy and literature that grapple with the legacy of colonial rule .As aliterary theory or critical...14 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As I see post-structuralism is a form of rebellion against structuralism and it accuses structuralism of not being following through the implications of the views about language on which their intellectual system is based. That was the conviction.
ReplyDeletePost structuralists maintain that we enter a universe of uncertainty.
Also I like what describes Post-structuralism of being without intellectual refrence points or what is called decentred universe.
Post-structuralism involves an imagery of the language as liquid which indicates that the meaning is floating.
personally i think we go deeper and now it is more dangerous....
almrashdh.blogspot.com
ReplyDeleteahlam almrashdh
Structuralism
Structuralism : is a type of criticism which began in France in 1516s,it was emphasize on that things cannot be understood in isolation. They have to be scene in the context on a larger structures.
As structuralism the language is:
1. arbitrariness: that mean language is a system of signs.
A. Signifier : verbal remark of the mental image.
B. Signified : belongs to the mental, the unseen, and belongs to the inside.
no logic reasoning for signifier and signified, there is exceptions (onomatopoeic) logical relation between a word and sound . e.g. (knock, hush, hiss, bomb, click).
2. relationally : represented in paradigmatic chain that chain of word related in function and meaning.
3. language constitutes our world.
Post–structuralism and deconstruction
ReplyDelete`
Post structuralism: a development of structuralism or a form rebellion against it.
The distinction between post structuralism and structuralism about tone and style:
Structuralism is:
1. Generalization and diagrams.
2. Style is neutral and traditional.
3. Static meaning leading to static style.
4. Themes and ideas are based a facts.
Deconstruction is:
1. Exceptions, abstracts and peculiarities.
2. Style is modern and unique based on playfulness of language, pun, fun and violation of grammatical rules.
3. Emotion specially, serious and darkness.
•Structuralism is an approach to the human sciences that attempts to analyze a specific field (for instance, mythology) as a complex system of interrelated parts. It began in linguistics with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913)
ReplyDelete•Like structuralism, rejects the notion of the human subject as cogito and emphasises the slippery, linguistic basis of all identity, meaning, knowledge and power . What Post-structuralists Do?
Poststructuralists are concerned with the way a text is constructed by criticism and concerned with structuration. They read a text in a reflective and self-conscious way looking at its values and motivations. Poststructuralists find in the text unconscious and unintended meanings, which may be directly contrary to the surface meaning. They bring to the foreground the root meanings of words and similarities in sound. Poststructuralists affirm a texts plurality and they fragment and disperse it, instead of unifying it. They go against their grains of what common sense is and show how a text comes to embarrass its own ruling system of logic. Poststructuralist critics identify a unit, such as a phrase, a sentence or a couple of sentences and analyse it so intensively that the language produces multiplicities of meaning and become impossible to sustain a univocal reading. Lastly, poststructuralists look for fault-lines, which
Structuralism/Post-structuralism Differentiation:
ReplyDeletePost-Structuralism has been described as a rebellion against Structuralism, as it was believed Structuralism did not go far enough in its ideas. Structuralism was based on linguistics and focus on texts where they were structured by language. Although Structuralism did encourage questioning these structures, its approach remained more logical and scientific, using observation and reason to come to what they would call the right conclusions. On the other hand Post-Structuralism took a more philosophical approach where everything including Linguistics could be questioned. Also focusing on a more emotional approach and in a sense begins to show some ideas of Modernism and Post-Modernism. Post-Structuralism can be described as having been influenced by both the Liberal Humanism and Structuralism movements that went before it, adopting and adapting ideas from each movement and combining them with others. Post-Structuralism reflected that in the past Liberal Humanists focused too much on the authority and meanings of the author, while Structuralism focused too much on the structure of the text, and not enough on the message.
...Structuralism vs. Post-structuralism...
ReplyDeleteStructuralism was a fashionable movement in France in the 1950s and 1960s, that studied the underlying structures inherent in cultural products (such as texts), and used analytical concepts from linguistics, psychology, anthropology and other fields to understand and interpret those structures. Although the structuralist movement fostered critical inquiry into these structures, it emphasized logical and scientific results. Many structuralists sought to integrate their work into pre-existing bodies of knowledge. This was observed in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure in linguistics, Claude Lévi-Strauss in anthropology, and many early 20th-century psychologists.
The general assumptions of post-structuralism derive from critique of structuralist premises. Specifically, post-structuralism holds that the study of underlying structures is itself culturally conditioned and therefore subject to myriad biases and misinterpretations. To understand an object (e.g. one of the many meanings of a text), it is necessary to study both the object itself, and the systems of knowledge which were coordinated to produce the object. In this way, post-structuralism positions itself as a study of how knowledge is produced
Scholars between both movements
ReplyDeleteThe uncertain distance between structuralism and post-structuralism is further blurred by the fact that scholars generally do not label themselves as post-structuralists. In some cases (e.g. Claude Lévi-Strauss and Roland Barthes), scholars associated with structuralism became noteworthy in post-structuralism as well. Along with Lévi-Strauss, three of the most prominent post-structuralists were first counted among the so-called "Gang of Four" of structuralism par excellence: Jacques Lacan, Roland Barthes, and Michel Foucault. The works of Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and Julia Kristeva are also counted as prominent examples of post-structuralism.
Basically, many who began by stating that texts could be interpreted based solely on the cultural and social circumstances of the author came to believe that the reader's culture and society shared an equal part in the interpretation of a piece. If the reader sees it in one way, how do we know that that is the way the author intended? We don't. Therefore, critical reading seeks to find the contradictions that an author inevitably includes in any given work. Those inconsistencies are used to show that the interpretation and criticism of any literature is in the hands of the individual reader and will necessarily include that reader's own cultural biases and assumptions. While many structuralists first thought that they could tease out an author's intention by close scrutiny, they soon found so many disconnections, that it was obvious that their own experiences lent a view that was unique to them.
http://ammareen.blogspot.com/
Post-structuralism rejects the notion of the essential quality of the dominant relation in the hierarchy, choosing rather to expose these relations and the dependency of the dominant term on its apparently subservient counterpart. The only way to properly understand these meanings is to deconstruct the assumptions and knowledge systems which produce the illusion of singular meaning. This act of deconstruction illuminates how male can become female, how speech can become writing, and how rational can become emotional
ReplyDeletehttp://mashaelh.blogspot.com/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletestructuralism ,in literary theory ,is an approach that analyzes the narrative material by examining the underlying structure ,which is based on the linguistic sign system of Ferdinand de Sassure.Structuralism states that human culture is understood as a system of signs.Structuralists attempted to develop a semiology (system of signs);Sassure ,who focused not on the use of language (parole)but rather on the underlying system of language (langue)and called his theory semiology,argued that signs were composed of two parts a signifier (the sound pattern of a word )and a signified (the concept of meaning of the word ).Therefore,structuralists relate the literary text to a larger overarching structure which may be a paticular genre , a range of intertextual connections , a model of universal narrative structure .
ReplyDeletePost structuralism is a theory that appeared as a rebellion against structuralism ,it emerged in France in the late 1960s.Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida are the two most closely figures associated with this emergence.
ReplyDeleteIn talking about structuralism ,structuralists look for features in the text as paralles,echoes,reflections,and so on to show a unity of purpose withen the text .By contrast ,the deconstructionist aims to show that the text is at war with itself :it is a house divided, and disunified; the deconstructionist looks for evidence of gaps,breaks,fissures and discontinuities of all kinds.However,i'd like to list some major differences between structuralism and post-structuralism.Since structuralism derives from linguistics,structuralists attempt to establish objective knowledge;they believe that by observing accurately,collecting data systematically ,and making logical deductions they can reach reliable conclusion about language and the world.By contrast, post-structuralism that derives from philosophy believes in scepticism;that is nothing is known for certain,there are no facts,only interpretations.
Structuralists tend towards generalisation and abstraction ,the tone is detached ,scintific and cool.while as post-stucturalists tend to be more emotive with an urgent euphoric tone and flamboyant style.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePost Structuralism
ReplyDeleteBy the mid 20th century there were a number of structural theories of human existence. In the study of language, the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) suggested that meaning was to be found within the structure of a whole language rather than in the analysis of individual words. For Marxists, the truth of human existence could be understood by an analysis of economic structures. Psychoanalysts attempted to describe the structure of the psyche in terms of an unconscious.
In the 1960's, the structuralist movement, based in France, attempted to synthesise the ideas of Marx, Freud and Saussure. They disagreed with the existentialists' claim that each man is what he makes himself. For the structuralist the individual is shaped by sociological, psychological and linguistic structures over which he/she has no control, but which could be uncovered by using their methods of investigation.
Originally labelled a structuralist, the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault came to be seen as the most important representative of the post-structuralist movement. He agreed that language and society were shaped by rule governed systems, but he disagreed with the structuralists on two counts. Firstly, he did not think that there were definite underlying structures that could explain the human condition and secondly he thought that it was impossible to step outside of discourse and survey the situation objectively.
Jacques Derrida (1930- ) developed deconstruction as a technique for uncovering the multiple interpretation of texts. Influenced by Heidegger and Nietzsche, Derrida suggests that all text has ambiguity and because of this the possibility of a final and complete interpretation is impossible.
the comment comes from:
http://www.philosopher.org.uk/poststr.htm
I want to ask you sir about whether the libreral humanism is included or not?
ReplyDeletehttp://al-manaseer.blogspot.com/
You need to read the chapter on "Liberal Humanism."
ReplyDeletehttp://fatemah-fatemah.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteDifference between Modernism and Postmodernism
ReplyDeleteModernism began in the 1890s and lasted till about 1945. Postmodernism began after the Second World War, especially after 1968. Modernism was based on using rational, logical means to gain knowledge while postmodernism denied the application of logical thinking. Rather, the thinking during the postmodern era was based on unscientific, irrational thought process, as a reaction to modernism. A hierarchical and organized and determinate nature of knowledge characterized modernism. But postmodernism was based on an anarchical, non-totalized and indeterminate state of knowledge. Modernist approach was objective, theoretical and analytical while the postmodernism approach was based on subjectivity. It lacked the analytical nature and thoughts were rhetorical and completely based on belief. The fundamental difference between modernism and postmodernism is that modernist thinking is about the search of an abstract truth of life while postmodernist thinkers believe that there is no universal truth, abstract or otherwise.
Modernism attempts to construct a coherent world-view whereas postmodernism attempts to remove the difference between high and low. Modernist thinking asserts that mankind progresses by using science and reason while postmodernist thinking believes that progress is a only way to justify the European domination on culture. Modernist thinking believes in learning from past experiences and trusts the texts that narrate the past. On the other hand postmodernist thinking defies any truth in the text narrating the past and renders it of no use in the present times. Modernist historians have a faith in depth. They believe in going deep into a subject to fully analyze it. This is not the case with postmodernist thinkers. They believe in going by the superficial appearances, they believe in playing on surfaces and show no concern towards the depth of subjects.
the characteristics of Postmodernism
ReplyDeleteWhen listing the chracteristics of postmodernism, it is important to remember that postmodernists do not place their philosophy in a defined box or category. Their beliefs and practices are personal rather than being identifiable with a particular establishment or special interest group. The following principles appear elemental to postmodernists:
There is no absolute truth - Postmodernists believe that the notion of truth is a contrived illusion, misused by people and special interest groups to gain power over others.
Truth and error are synonymous - Facts, postmodernists claim, are too limiting to determine anything. Changing erratically, what is fact today can be false tomorrow.
Self-conceptualization and rationalization - Traditional logic and objectivity are spurned by postmodernists. Preferring to rely on opinions rather than embrace facts, postmodernist spurn the scientific method.
Traditional authority is false and corrupt - Postmodernists speak out against the constraints of religious morals and secular authority. They wage intellectual revolution to voice their concerns about traditional establishment.
Ownership - They claim that collective ownership would most fairly administrate goods and services.
Disillusionment with modernism - Postmodernists rue the unfulfilled promises of science, technology, government, and religion.
Morality is personal - Believing ethics to be relative, postmodernists subject morality to personal opinion. They define morality as each person’s private code of ethics without the need to follow traditional values and rules.
Globalization – Many postmodernists claim that national boundaries are a hindrance to human communication. Nationalism, they believe, causes wars. Therefore, postmodernists often propose internationalism and uniting separate countries.
All religions are valid - Valuing inclusive faiths, postmodernists gravitate towards New Age religion. They denounce the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ as being the only way to God.
Liberal ethics - Postmodernists defend the cause of feminists and homosexuals.
Pro-environmentalism - Defending “Mother Earth,” postmodernists blame Western society for its destruction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*James Joyce is perhaps the ultimate Modernist. His masterly work Ulysses (1922) focuses on just one day in the life of two people, using multiple narrators, interior monologue, stream of consciousness, literary parody and stylistic changes. Few have managed successfully to follow his lead, but his influence can be felt in the works of writers such Flann O'Brien and Malcolm Lowry, whose Under the Volcano takes place over the course of a single day.
ReplyDelete*D.H. Lawrence and Virginia Woolf were both heavily influenced by Freud. Woolf, in novels such as Mrs Dalloway and The Years, employed much structural experimentation, while Lawrence, though using more traditional narrative forms, was poetic and emotional in style and daring in his subject matter.
*The most important Modernist poets were the Americans T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound and the Irishman W.B. Yeats. Eliot's The Waste Land is a perfect example of Modernist techniques, with its juxtaposition of fragments and different forms and techniques, its use of intertextuality and its bleak urban settings.
The Modernism movement is often difficult to define because it carries many different meanings. Indeed, some argue that Modernism refers to a specific literary period, while others believe it is a certain literary style or genre. However, it is generally accepted that Modernism connotes a kind of avant-garde writing, one that rebels against traditional literary conventio
ReplyDeleteHappy Eid for you
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletestructuralism is probably best to approach the term "structuralism" through an attempt to understand the concept of "structure" within this theoretical point of view. Without an understanding of this fundamental concept, it is difficult to arrive to an understanding of the intellectual movement referred to as structuralism. Traditionally the major problem with the term structure has been its concreteness. The word refers to phenomena, e.g. buildings, which are most physical in their essence. Needless to say, structures in structuralism are not neither concrete nor physical. Structures refer to mental models built after concrete realty. Furthermore these models are not obvious but demand an understanding of hidden, or deep aspects, of the matter at hand. Following this approach structuralism is an attempt to build models which can help understand or, as structuralists, would put it explicate the materials at hand.
ReplyDeleteThe most difficult aspect of structuralism is that these structures are not based on concrete or physical phenomena as they are in biological or other sciences but based on cultural realities such kinship organization or tales. These cultural realities are mental as are the structures which explicate them. These structures and their structuralist models exist only in human minds, and not in nature as e.g. a Marxist would claim.
There are many structuralists including Ferdinand de Saussure, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Lévi-Strauss. It is even possible to claim that some important social and/or psychological theoreticians and certain sciences are structuralist in character because what they do is to build models of psychological or social reality. This seems to be particularly true of Sigmund Freud and Carl Marx. In all of the above a distinction is made between what may be called surface (consciousness, superstructure) structure and deep (unconscious, infrastructure) structure. It is also worth noting that structuralist claim that to understand the surface structure one has to understand the deep structure, and how the it influences the surface structure. It is accurate to say that of all the structuralist the best known and most influential is Claude Lévi-Strauss.
Happy Eid Doctor Zaydun
ReplyDeleteHi doctor
ReplyDeleteI'm Lamia alkharraz
can you add me please cuz I don't know add you
thanx & Good bye
Psychological criticism focuses primarily on the characters, and on what psychological forces influence and shape them throughout the work. This school of criticism emphasizes character development and the relationships between characters. Most psychological critics rely on the works of Sigmund Freud as their psychological base, though this is by no means necessary.
ReplyDeleteReview of "New Psychologies in Psychological Literary Criticism"
Joseph Carroll, Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature. New York: Taylor Francis/Routledge, 2004; Sara E. Cooper, ed. The Ties that Bind: Questioning Family Dynamics and Family Discourse in Hispanic Literature. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2004; Piotr Sadowski, Dynamism of Character in Shakespeare's Mature Tragedies. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press, 2003.
For those interested in psychologically-oriented literary criticism, see *Striking at the Joints* (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1996);
Structuralism is an approach to the human sciences that attempts to analyze a specific field (for instance, mythology) as a complex system of interrelated parts. It began in linguistics with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). But many French intellectuals perceived it to have a wider application, and the model was soon modified and applied to other fields, such as anthropology, psychology, psychoanalysis, literary theory and architecture. This ushered in the dawn of structuralism as not just a method, but also an intellectual movement that came to take existentialism's pedestal in 1960s France.
ReplyDeleteIn the 1970s, it came under internal fire from critics who accused it of being too rigid and ahistorical. However, many of structuralism's theorists, from Michel Foucault to Jacques Lacan, continue to assert an influence on continental philosophy, and many of the fundamental assumptions of its critics, that is, of adherents of poststructuralism, are but a continuation of structuralism.
According to Alison Assiter, there are four common ideas regarding structuralism that form an 'intellectual trend'. Firstly, the structure is what determines the position of each element of a whole. Secondly, structuralists believe that every system has a structure. Thirdly, structuralists are interested in 'structural' laws that deal with coexistence rather than changes. And finally structures are the 'real things' that lie beneath the surface or the appearance of meaning.
Marxism is a particular political philosophy, economic and sociological worldview based upon a materialist interpretation of history, a Marxist analysis of capitalism, a theory of social change, and an atheist view of human liberation derived from the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
ReplyDeleteKarl Marx and Friedrich Engels founded a new economic movement called Socialism. According to Marx, the supreme end of man is an immanent and material one, and consists in happiness. This material happiness must be obtained through organized collectivism. In fact, according to Marx, reality is governed by economic needs (historical materialism). Economic reality develops according to Hegel's dialectical principles; that is, reality must deny itself in order to reach a higher degree of being.
In application, this principle means that the present organization of society must be destroyed (even through violent revolution, if necessary, because only through such destruction can a better political, economic, and social organization be achieved. To establish this new format of society, working men (the proletariat) must be organized and take up the struggle against the capitalists who defraud them. Thus the actors in this drama are the social classes -- the proletariat is arrayed against capitalism. This struggle, according to Marx and Engels, will end in victory for the proletariat, that is, in the triumph of universal Socialism.
Postcolonialism as a literary theory (with a critical approach), deals with literature produced in countries that once were colonies of other countries, especially of the European colonial powers Britain, France, and Spain; in some contexts, it includes countries still in colonial arrangements. It also deals with literature written by citizens of colonial countries that portrays colonized people as its subject matter. Colonized people, especially of the British Empire, attended British universities and with their access to education, created this new criticism. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union during the late 20th century, its former republics became the subject of this study as well.[6]
ReplyDeleteOften, previously colonized places are homogenized in western discourse under an umbrella label such as the ‘Third World’. Postcolonialism demonstrates the heterogeneity of colonized places by analyzing the uneven impact of Western colonialism on different places, peoples, and cultures[7]. This is done by engaging with the variety of ways in which “relations, practices and representations” of the past is “reproduced or transformed”, and studying the connections between the “heart and margins” of the empire[8]. Moreover, postcolonialism recognizes that there was, and still is, resistance to the West. This resistance is practiced by many, including the subaltern, a group of marginalized, and least powerful.
Ideology and socioeconomic theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The fundamental ideology of communism, it holds that all people are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labour but are prevented from doing so in a capitalist economic system, which divides society into two classes: nonowning workers and nonworking owners. Marx called the resulting situation "alienation," and he said that when the workers repossessed the fruits of their labour, alienation would be overcome and class divisions would cease. The Marxist theory of history posits class struggle as history's driving force, and it sees capitalism as the most recent and most critical historical stage — most critical because at this stage the proletariat will at last arise united. The failure of the European Revolutions of 1848 and an increasing need to elaborate on Marxist theory, whose orientation is more analytical than practical, led to adaptations such as Leninism and Maoism; in the late 20th century the collapse of the Soviet Union and China's adoption of many elements of a free-market economy seemed to mark the end of Marxism as an applicable economic or governmental theory, though it is still appreciated as a critique of market capitalism and a theory of historical change. See also Communist Manifesto; dialectical materialism; socialism; Stalinism; Trotskyism.
ReplyDeletecolonialism
ReplyDeleteThe aggregate of various economic, political, and social policies by which an imperial power maintains or extends its control over other areas or peoples. It includes the practice of or belief in acquiring and retaining colonies. The emphasis is less on its identity as an ideological political system than on its designation in a period of history. (webster, 3d ed; from dr. J. Cassedy, nlm history of medicine division)
(12 Dec 1998)