The+Uses+of+French+Structuralisms+in+Sociology


 * Lemert, Charles. 1990. “The Uses of French Structuralisms in Sociology.” In //Frontiers of Social Theory: The New Syntheses,// ed. George Ritzer. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 230** – 254.

Ela Rossmiller __Summary:__ 1. “Varieties of French Structuralism” pp. 231-7 a. This section discusses structuralism and its rebellious children, post-structuralism and postmodernism. b. Structuralism was a movement of the 1950s and early 60s associated with Levi-Strauss, the early Barthes, and others in the fields of anthropology, linguistics, and literature. i. Emphasized formal structures and systems, usually linguistic, as independent forces influencing society. P. 232 c. Post-structuralism makes subversive use of language and word-play to undermine and deconstruct structure. Examples: Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, the late Barthes, Kristeva. d. Postmodernism joins forces with structuralism and poststructuralism to attack many of the assumptions, principles, and values of Modernity. P. 233 i. Structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism question objective, scientific knowledge, subject-object dichotomy, universal laws, positivism, the ideal of clear, uncomplicated, mutually intelligible communication, etc. (p. 233-4) ii. Instead, focuses on language and on the ways knowledge is constructed through discourse. P. 234 e. A common criticism is that such writers are inaccessible and difficult to read since they intentionally distort language to make their points. P. 235 2. “Post-Structuralism and Sociology” pp. 237-244 a. Post-structuralism and postmodernism represent a (political) //practice// of de-centering moreso than a body of knowledge. b. “Post-structuralism claims that intellectual work is political, and it does so with reference to concepts most sociologists would consider anything but political—text and discourse.” (p. 238) c. Post-structuralism was a child of its times, embedded in the revolutionary politics of late 1960s France. (p. 239) d. Methodological approach = break the rules, thwart principles, play with text, reveal the hidden, obfuscate the obvious, convey the impossibility of knowing. e. Can sociology adopt this approach? Can we have a “discursive sociology”? No and yes. No, because it is so radical (rejecting knowledge, subject-object dichotomies, science) and because it is hard to work with discourse as both an object of study and a medium for interpretation(“talking about talk” and “interpreting interpretations”). Yes because sociology is self-reflexive along similar lines. (p. 241-2) f. Post-structuralism and postmodernism have been most successfully used to ferret out hidden discourses of women, African-Americans, and third-world writers. (p. 242) g. Question: Is everything discourse? Does the “real world” have anything to offer aside from discourse? “Or, better put, what does it mean to propose that sociology be the discursive study of nothing but discursive texts?” (p. 243) 3. “Text, Discursive Sociology, and Vietnam: An Illustration” pp. 244-252 a. The insights of poststructuralism and postmodernism can produce a discursive sociology that is at its best when questioning the interpretation of texts (e.g. questionnaires, letters, archival data, etc.) increases our understanding of them. (p. 244-5) b. Lemert offers a case study interpreting Vietnam War texts, unmasking internal contradictions and doublethink. __Quotable Quotes:__ “Modernism is taken as the centered, hierarchical, Europeanized, dominant world against which the principle of difference is thrust to assert the realities of those whose lives are marked by the experience of difference – women, nonwhites, working class, the third world.” P. 237 __Comments/Questions:__ · Lemert’s case study combines analysis of literal texts and events read as texts. What are the benefits and limitations of reading events as texts? How does this analysis compare to other ways of analyzing events? · Post-structuralism arose at a time of revolutionary politics in France. As such, it was preoccupied with upsetting the status quo. What can it offer less revolutionary scholars?