[ Forum Central | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Christopher Heard
Date: 1/24/99
The problem I see with structuralism, besides its anti-humanism, is its lack of an historical sense. It is possible that it is from a historicist perspective, albeit in a manner different than that of Enlightenment historicism, that some answers may lie. The structuralist impasse was to a large extent its atemporal position: hence structure lived the subject, and there were no means of interactive and reciprocating feedback. Post-structuralism goes to a certain extent to the other side of the coin, defining all as flux, with no structure inherent to it. This is a highly qualified statement, given the range of positions nested within the broad rubric of the post-modern, but is not entirely inaccurate.
You might try reading Anthony Giddens, particularly his works explaining his theory of structuration, which seeks third terms which do not fall within traditional Hegelian dialectics. It is a sociolgical perspective, and he does caution against finding too ready a correspondence between the micro and macrocosmic, but he offers plenty of material for thought from a strong, well developed theoretical position.
[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]