>>Narrator:
What is poststructuralism?
Poststructuralism is a set of twentieth-century ideas about language and
representation that have been very
influential in the humanities,
especially in literary criticism.
We'll look at these ideas by focusing on
one key concept in poststructuralism,
the chain of signification.
Poststructuralism as an extension or
evolution of an earlier movement called
structuralism.
Literary critics often trace structuralism's beginnings to the work of the Swiss linguist
Ferdinand de Saussure.
Saussure looked an element of language,
let's say in a word,
and divided it into two parts:
the sound of the word,
and the concept it represents.
He called the sound of the word the "signifier,"
and he called the concept the "signified."
The union of these two he called the "sign."
This diagram appears in Saussure's book
The Course in General Linguistics.
Saussure pointed out that the
association of a given sound or signifier
with a given concept or signified is arbitrary.
There's nothing simple or permanent about it.
Saussure wrote: "the arbitrary nature of the
sign dominates all the linguistics of language;
Its consequences are numberless."
This line and its emphasis on the arbitrary
association between these two halves
suggested on uncertainty
or slippage in language
that would become a key tenet of poststructuralism.
How does that slippage arise?
Well, in place of this idea that signified and signifier were closely tied to one another,
Saussure observed that each term is defined in relation to other similar terms nearby.
For example,
the sound of the word "horse" differs
only slightly from "horn" and "hearse."
Saussure pointed out that the concept--the signified--was also defined
differentially in the same way.
Defining me not positively but negatively--as a kind of gap between
adjacent terms--this also contributed to
this sense of slippage, and it would have
far-reaching implications for later
critics.
In fact,
Saussure had another diagram to express
the blurry boundaries between terms.
He redrew the series of signifiers as a
continuum.
And up here is another stream that
corresponds to the continuum of concepts,
or signifieds.
It's language's role to delineate units
of meaning,
and map between these two streams.
"It is mysterious," Saussure wrote, "that
language works out its units while
taking shape between two shapeless masses."
But Saussure's model remained simple in
the sense that it was essentially
one-dimensional.
What happens when we introduce additional layers of signification?
For example, the word "lion" in signifies a
particular animal,
but on another level the lion can signify another meaning like courage,
nobility, or MGM Studios.
Here is Saussure's sign.
The sound of the word "lion" is the signifer, and the concept of the
animal lion is the signified.
The two together form the sign Lion.
Let's turn this on its side and redraw it slightly,
and here we'll put a label for the whole box or the whole sign.
On another level,
this whole sign is a signifier for something else--say a king.
We now have two nested signs with one
taking the role of signifier in the other.
This diagram is adapted from one drawn
by the literary critic Roland Barthes.
And while Barthes focused on this two-term system,
later critics extended it further, noting that these boxes could be nested infinitely.
Radical poststructuralism suggests that the chain of signification has no end.
Language never points to a concrete signified outside the chain that would
anchor it in an external reality.
Instead, language only ever points to additional layers of language
further down the chain.
The French philosopher Jacques Derrida played on Saussure's idea that meaning lies
in difference
by adding the idea that meaning is also
defered endlessly down this chain.
It's worth noting that while Saussure and Barthes actually used the diagrams we
looked at earlier,
Derrida's writing never includes this image.
In Derrida's text it is prose,
not diagrams, that has the upper hand.
And perhaps this is because the idea of
reducing meaning to something simple,
like a line drawing, is exactly what
radical poststructuralism rejects.
Paul de Man wrote about the dangers
of using a simple illustration to
represent the complexity of representation itself:
"From the experience of reading abstract philosophical texts
we all know the relief one feels when
the argument is interrupted by what we
call a 'concrete' example.
Yet at that very moment
when we think at last that we
understand, we are further from
comprehension than ever.
De Man was talking about examples used
illustrate an argument,
but what he says could apply equally to
visual diagrams.
Fair warning!
Literature influenced by poststructuralism may reproduce these recursive structures
in itself, through devices like metafiction,
in which the narrative contains other
narratives nested within it.
The opposite of this might be something
like literary realism--
literature believes it can clearly and
faithfully represent a reality that lies
outside language.
Poststructuralist critics tend to be
skeptical of that belief,
and even wary of it.
Whatever literature they look at,
critics working in the wake of
poststructuralism have embraced the
ambiguity of language
by searching for ways that the smallest
details of a text can be read to
generate new meanings--particularly
surprising, even playful meetings that
are at odds with the more obvious
interpretations of a text.
These conclusions about the slipperiness of meaning
can be applied to non-literary language as well.
Media theories influenced by poststructuralism  suggest that the
mass media no longer portrays real
external events, but that events now
mimic the media or are staged for it.
From the self-referentiality of popular culture
to the way politics is staged for the television cameras--
these things are taken as evidence that
electronic media have lost any referent
or anchor in reality,
and only ever point at other layers of media.
Derrida famously declared that 
"There is nothing outside of the text."
Naive critiques of this idea sometimes 
suggest that Derrida is denying the
importance of a physical reality.
But it might be more accurate to say that poststructuralism is about
recognizing the power of language to
shape and reshape our own individual
realities in important ways.
Realizing that there is nothing outside of the text
means recognizing that we can never get outside these boxes--
We can never get to the end of this chain--
because there is no meaning or referent
that cannot in turn be reinterpreted
to mean something else.
This idea that meaning is endlessly
postponed may sound like a bleak conclusion.
But many literary critics see it as an
optimistic one.
The more freedom or play in this chain,
the more room for a reader to generate
his or her own meanings from the text.
This term "play" was a key one for Barthes.
He used it to refer to a flexibility or
movement in the text that allowed it to
be interpreted in different ways.
He also used it to refer to the act of
reading and interpretation, which was
playful, like a game,
and also creative, active,
and virtuosic, like a musician playing a score.
This is a short definition of postructuralism.
But as you may be able to see, 
an even more concise definition could be
that poststructuralism is a suspicion of concise definitions.
It's a consciousness that literary language 
and maybe language more broadly
do not point simply or a reliably to a
stable meaning,
but only over defer meaning by pointing to other language.
Poststructuralism encourages a way of
reading that is aware of the gaps in
meaning that inevitably exist in language.
It is a way of reading that does not try
to get outside language to nail down
meaning or close those gaps.
Rather, it revels in the play of language
and plays at constructing new meanings
in the spaces these gaps open up.
>>Bolton. So we'll transition from the flash animation to the live action footage
of me drawing. [Music]
Uh...but just when the audience thinks that they're seeing the reality
behind the scenes
that footage will actually retreat into a box in the upper left, uh, the signifier box,
reminding them that this footage too
is just one more signifier.
Then the thing that we're signifying, these critical texts like Derrida, will appear in the
upper right in the signified box.
Uh...and the production credits, the
people who produced this whole sign
of the film, will appear below.
And eventually we'll zoom out to show a
second camera...ahh...to remind people that no
matter how many layers of signification
you peel away,
there's always another layer underneath.
Maybe we can even run this voiceover under the credits.
And fade to white.
