Poststructuralism by Ray Misson

This is Caroline Archer's commentary on Poststructuralism

Misson gives a helpful summary of poststructuralism, recalling the key contributions of that famed triumvirate, Derrida, Barthes and Foucault. The posstructuralists held that meaning is entirely comprised of and contingent on text. Reading does not involve a straightforward transmission of meaning but a dynamic interplay, in which the text is informed by the meanings brought to it by both composer and reader, who are themselves nothing more than composite products of previously digested texts. As Derrida memorably declared, ‘there is nothing outside text’. Foucault contributed a focus on the inherently political nature of ‘discourses’, set ways of speaking/acting within certain social groups/contexts. From this perspective, language is inherently value laden, demonstrating and perpetuating power relations within various groups. Finally, Barthes’ notion of the ‘death of the author’ rejected the concept of the author ‘as a determinative, validating presence behind the text’ (at p 71).

The poststructuralist discourse arguably has its own underpinning normative values, such as the implicit denial of anything beyond the material, which the spiritually inclined might find dismaying. Misson notes that poststructuralism attracts ‘a good deal of suspicion because it challenges a lot of beliefs that people live by, beliefs such as the determinacy of language and the existence of a core self outside of society and language’(at p 75). The important point of Chapter 8 however is that poststructuralism informs ‘most of the major innovations and new insights we find occurring in English teaching today.’ (at p 75) The relationship between posstructuralism and our curriculum start to become clearer when one looks closer at the outcomes driving the curriculum.

Misson demonstrates the application of poststructural approaches to language by deconstructing a poem that celebrates a farmer’s love of the land. He identifies possible alternate underlying discourses connected with sexual and environmental exploitation. Strategic tailoring to reflect these new discourses produces a radically different poem of equivalent integrity to the original. Deconstruction does not negate the original but rather enabled appreciation of both poems according to their respective discourses. The exercise demonstrates deconstruction and subversion of text as an insight-building, positive, creative experience.

A posstructuralist starting point makes all this possible: if the text is not sacrosanct, there is no need for readers to be intimidated by or negative about the text. Rather, deconstruction allows for collaborative, insightful appreciation of the text and the freedom to engage with it, understand it and even see it metamorphose into new texts. In short, it allows key elements of the curriculum outcomes to be realised. The DVD teaching scenarios further highlight this. The freedom and playfulness made possible by deconstructive approaches foster student engagement, confident analysis, innovation and creativity. For example, in one exercise students identified key elements of the gothic genre, then rewrote a newspaper article they’d been given into that genre.

When the death of the author is extended to the English class, it also implies the death of the teacher, in the traditional sense of a single intimidating conduit of knowledge, dispensing wisdom to the essentially passive class. At my school, we were sometimes told there was no one right answer, but noone believed it. It was a bit easier to believe after watching the DVDs, in which teachers collaborate to empower groups of students to form and articulate their responses to texts.

I wish I could sound as technically competent as Caroline does. Does this mean that I won't be a very good English teacher? I am not sure if I want to answer that question...