Among the first and remaining one of the best critics of what he has variously called the literature of silence or of unmaking, Ihab Hassan in The Postmodern Turn offers in ten chapters a retrospective of his "complicity with postmodernism," its attributes, development and future, relation to theory and to the "current academic milieu," and literary/cultural/geopolitical/gnostic significance. All but the last of the ten essays have seen print before (the earliest in 1967), six as parts of the author's previous books. A kind of greatest hits collection, this Hassan reader is nonetheless a useful summary of his thoughts and an obvious point of departure for readers new to his work.
In its complexity and richness, The Postmodern Turn resists paraphrase, each of its essays silently crying, "No, do not understand me too easily." But in brief: following a short, substantive introduction that locates postmodernism's importance in its being "an act of self-apprehension by which a culture seeks to understand itself," Hassan organizes his ten selections topically and, for the most part, chronologically in four sections. The first, a single chapter on "The Literature of Silence," traces postmodernism's roots to mannerism, romanticism, and modernism, and it designates the silence of outrage and apocalypse as contemporary avant-gardism's salient characteristic. Section Two, "Concepts of Postmodernism," contains three chapters that chart postmodernism's development and differentiate it from modernism and other manifestations of the avant garde; offers a history of the concept and its difficulties; and posits immanence and indeterminacy as postmodernism's "ruling tendencies" with an eye toward disclosing thereby "coherent hints of a posthumanist culture." The four chapters of Section Three, "Postmodern Literature and Criticism," explore critical theory "because theory, puissant with new abstractions, has clearly shaped postmodernism, a postmodernism [End Page 370] wherein literature and criticism constantly blend." Toward this end, Hassan offers an examination of Finnegans Wake as a "monstrous prophecy of our postmodernity"; considers the relation of criticism to "the imperatives of innovation"; "implicates criticism—as desire, reading, writing/acting—in the critic's passional life"; and places current critical pluralism in a "postmodern perspective." Finally, Section Four, "Postlude to Postmodernism," turns in two chapters to an appraisal of postmodernism, then away to ask, "What next?" (Hassan would like to see a return to Jamesian pragmatism) and "What really is at stake?" A carefully chosen bibliography closes the book.
Scattered throughout its pages The Postmodern Turn offers, like a critical Bartlett's, the fragments of the most thorough, nuanced, and provocatively wide-ranging definition of postmodernism one might reasonably desire, although its diffused density may render it less satisfying to some than the more readerly formulations of, say, John Barth. Additionally, Hassan's typographically lively "paracritical" style, which characterizes several of the essays, may prove off-putting to readers not used to prose bent on moving defiantly beyond "linear 'reasoned discourse' . . . to express the full measure of human awareness." Such difficulties, however, must not be allowed to obscure the real importance, beyond critical cant, of the concerns this book explores, a significance that can perhaps be suggested by Hassan's summary of the overall pattern his book renders, "a pattern that many others have also seen: a vast, revisionary will in the Western world, unsettling/resettling codes, canons, procedures, beliefs—intimating a posthumanism?
A friend recently remarked that today the problem for literary critics seems to be not staying on the cutting edge but finding it. What Hassan demonstrates throughout The Postmodern Turn is that it is not possible to be intellectually/emotionally/spiritually alive today without finding oneself, willy-nilly, already on the edge. In this respect, the book is exactly what its author announces it to be: "a short history of our epoch" as well as a persuasive plea for criticism possessing, beyond the urge to clarify, the "wisdom of the senses and of the spirit": criticism willing, like literature, to "endanger itself." Meant "less to consolidate any statement on postmodernism than to review its questions, moot them once...
Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, Postmodernism (1966-present)
This resource will help you begin the process of understanding literary theory and schools of criticism and how they are used in the academy.
Contributors: Allen Brizee, J. Case Tompkins, Libby Chernouski, Elizabeth Boyle, Sebastian Williams
Last Edited: 2018-02-07 03:21:05
Note: Structuralism, semiotics, and post-structuralism are some of the most complex literary theories to understand. Please be patient.
The Center Cannot Hold
This approach concerns itself with the ways and places where systems, frameworks, definitions, and certainties break down. Post-structuralism maintains that frameworks and systems, for example the structuralist systems explained in the structuralist area, are merely fictitious constructs and that they cannot be trusted to develop meaning or to give order. In fact, the very act of seeking order or a singular Truth (with a capital T) is absurd because there exists no unified truth.
Post-structuralism holds that there are many truths, that frameworks must bleed, and that structures must become unstable or decentered. Moreover, post-structuralism is also concerned with the power structures or hegemonies and power and how these elements contribute to and/or maintain structures to enforce hierarchy. Therefore, post-structural theory carries implications far beyond literary criticism.
What Does Your Meaning Mean?
By questioning the process of developing meaning, post-structural theory strikes at the very heart of philosophy and reality and throws knowledge making into what Jacques Derrida called "freeplay": "The concept of centered structure...is contradictorily coherent...the concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a freeplay which is constituted upon a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which is itself beyond the reach of the freeplay" (qtd. in Richter, 878-879).
Derrida first posited these ideas in 1966 at Johns Hopkins University when he delivered “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”: "Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an 'event,' if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural-or structuralist-thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term 'event' anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling” (qtd. in Richter, 878). In his presentation, Derrida challenged structuralism's most basic ideas.
Can Language Do That?
Post-structural theory can be tied to a move against Modernist/Enlightenment ideas (philosophers: Immanuel Kant, Réne Descartes, John Locke, etc.) and Western religious beliefs (neo-Platonism, Catholicism, etc.). An early pioneer of this resistance was philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. In his essay, “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense” (1873), Nietzsche rejects even the very basis of our knowledge making, language, as a reliable system of communication: “The various languages, juxtaposed, show that words are never concerned with truth, never with adequate expression...” (248).
Below is an example, adapted from the Tyson text, of some language freeplay and a simple form of deconstruction:
Time (noun) flies (verb) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Time passes quickly.
Time (verb) flies (object) like an arrow (adverb clause) = Get out your stopwatch and time the speed of flies as you would time an arrow's flight.
Time flies (noun) like (verb) an arrow (object) = Time flies are fond of arrows (or at least of one particular arrow).
So, post-structuralists assert that if we cannot trust language systems to convey truth, the very bases of truth are unreliable and the universe - or at least the universe we have constructed - becomes unraveled or de-centered. Nietzsche uses language slip as a base to move into the slip and shift of truth as a whole: “What is truth? …truths are an illusion about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions...” ("On Truth and Lies" 250).
This returns us to the discussion in the structuralist area regarding signs, signifiers, and signified. Essentially, post-structuralism holds that we cannot trust the sign = signifier + signified formula, that there is a breakdown of certainty between sign/signifier, which leaves language systems hopelessly inadequate for relaying meaning so that we are (returning to Derrida) in eternal freeplay or instability.
Important to note, however, is that deconstruction is not just about tearing down - this is a common misconception. Derrida, in "Signature Event Context," addressed this limited view of post-structural theory: "Deconstruction cannot limit or proceed immediately to a neutralization: it must…practice an overturning of the classical opposition and a general displacement of the system. It is only on this condition that deconstruction will provide itself the means with which to intervene in the field of oppositions that it criticizes, which is also a field of nondiscursive forces" (328).
Derrida reminds us that through deconstruction we can identify the in-betweens and the marginalized to begin interstitial knowledge building.
Modernism vs Postmodernism
With the resistance to traditional forms of knowledge making (science, religion, language), inquiry, communication, and building meaning take on different forms to the post-structuralist. We can look at this difference as a split between Modernism and Postmodernism. The table below, excerpted from theorist Ihab Hassan's The Dismemberment of Orpheus (1998), offers us a way to make sense of some differences between Modernism, dominated by Enlightenment ideas, and Postmodernism, a space of freeplay and discourse.
Keep in mind that even the author, Hassan, "...is quick to point out how the dichotomies are themselves insecure, equivocal" (Harvey 42). Though post-structuralism is uncomfortable with binaries, Hassan provides us with some interesting contrasts to consider:
|Modernism vs Postmodernism|
|form (conjunctive, closed)||antiform (disjunctive, open)|
|art object/finished work/logos||process/performance/antithesis|
|narrative/grande histoire||anti-narrative/petite histoire|
|God the Father||The Holy Ghost|
Post-Structuralism and Literature
If we are questioning/resisting the methods we use to build knowledge (science, religion, language), then traditional literary notions are also thrown into freeplay. These include the narrative and the author:
The narrative is a fiction that locks readers into interpreting text in a single, chronological manner that does not reflect our experiences. Postmodern texts may not adhere to traditional notions of narrative. For example, in his seminal work, Naked Lunch, William S. Burroughs explodes the traditional narrative structure and critiques almost everything Modern: modern government, modern medicine, modern law-enforcement. Other examples of authors playing with narrative include John Fowles; in the final sections of The French Lieutenant's Woman, Fowles steps outside his narrative to speak with the reader directly.
Moreover, grand narratives are resisted. For example, the belief that through science the human race will improve is questioned. In addition, metaphysics is questioned. Instead, postmodern knowledge building is local, situated, slippery, and self-critical (i.e. it questions itself and its role). Because post-structural work is self-critical, post-structural critics even look for ways texts contradict themselves (see typical questions below).
The author is displaced as absolute author(ity), and the reader plays a role in interpreting the text and developing meaning (as best as possible) from the text. In “The Death of the Author,” Roland Barthes argues that the idea of singular authorship is a recent phenomenon. Barthes explains that the death of the author shatters Modernist notions of authority and knowledge building (145).
Lastly, he states that once the author is dead and the Modernist idea of singular narrative (and thus authority) is overturned, texts become plural, and the interpretation of texts becomes a collaborative process between author and audience: “...a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue...but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader” (148). Barthes ends his essay by empowering the reader: “Classical criticism has never paid any attention to the reader...the writer is the only person in literature…it is necessary to overthrow the myth: the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author” (148).
- How is language thrown into freeplay or questioned in the work? For example, note how Anthony Burgess plays with language (Russian vs English) in A Clockwork Orange, or how Burroughs plays with names and language in Naked Lunch.
- How does the work undermine or contradict generally accepted truths?
- How does the author (or a character) omit, change, or reconstruct memory and identity?
- How does a work fulfill or move outside the established conventions of its genre?
- How does the work deal with the separation (or lack thereof) between writer, work, and reader?
- What ideology does the text seem to promote?
- What is left out of the text that if included might undermine the goal of the work?
- If we changed the point of view of the text - say from one character to another, or multiple characters - how would the story change? Whose story is not told in the text? Who is left out and why might the author have omitted this character's tale?
Here is a list of scholars we encourage you to explore to further your understanding of this theory:
- Immanuel Kant - "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?", 1784 (as a baseline to understand what Nietzsche was resisting)
- Friedrich Nietzsche - “On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense," 1873; The Gay Science, 1882; Thus Spoke Zarathustra, A Book for All and None, 1885
- Jacques Derrida - "Structure Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences," 1966; Of Grammatology, 1967; "Signature Event Context," 1972
- Roland Barthes - "The Death of the Author," 1967
- Deleuze and Guattari - "Rhizome," 1976
- Jean-François Lyotard - The Postmodern Condition, 1979
- Michele Foucault - The Foucault Reader, 1984
- Stephen Toulmin - Cosmopolis, 1990
- Martin Heidegger - Basic Writings, 1993
- Paul Cilliers - Complexity and Postmodernity, 1998
- Ihab Hassan - The Dismemberment of Orpheus, 1998; From Postmodernism to Postmodernity: The Local/Global Context, 2001
- William S. Burroughs - Naked Lunch, 1959
- Angela Carter - Burning Your Boats, stories from 1962-1993 (first published as a collection in 1995)
- Kathy Acker - Blood and Guts in High School, 1978
- Paul Auster - City of Glass (volume one of the New York City Trilogy), 1985 (as a graphic novel published by Neon Lit, a division of Avon Books, 1994)
- Lynne Tillman - Haunted Houses, 1987
- David Wojnarowicz - The Waterfront Journals, 1996