Post-structralism

Post-structuralists are interested in fragmentation and fluidity. Post­structuralism is about rethinking linguistic structuralism rather than completely rejecting it. Most of post-structuralism goes against key structuralist assumptions (see discussion of the linguistic turn below). It proposes that there is no underlying ‘truth’ behind the appearances — the point is to analyze the ‘appearances’ (see Barthes, 1967, for example).

Foucault is one of the most influential figures in the move towards post-structuralism, especially for those interested in the sociology of gender. He has made critical use of insights from both linguistic and Marxist structuralism in ways that challenge both those perspectives and offer new ways of looking at the world. Interested both in ‘things’ and ‘words’, in both the material and meaning, Foucault sought to understand how the two connected, but in always shifting ways. He did not think there was one ‘truth’ to be discovered by looking at underlying rational structures. His work aimed to examine how changing discourses (systematically organized ways of making meaning such as psychiatric categorization) exert power upon human bodies. For example when he studied histor­ical changes in systems of punishment, Foucault (1975/1979) argued that as imprisonment became the common form of punishment new ways of making meaning were also being established. Prisons were about watching people to make sure they behaved, but also were ideal places to collect information from observing people. This knowledge about people could then be used to design more efficient systems for controlling them. Foucault argued that a horribly efficient system of control was one in which prisoners could not be sure when or whether they were being watched. As a result prisoners had to assume they were being watched all the time and discipline, or control themselves, accordingly. Foucault argues that these discursive practices based around the idea of self­surveillance have become dominant not just within prisons, but within society as a whole. At school, for example, children learn to regulate their bodies and desires in order to fit into so-called ‘normal’ adult society. They learn to sit up straight, that it is preferable to go to the toilet in break time, and that they should be physically fit. Throughout our lives we learn to ‘watch’ ourselves, to constantly monitor our bodies and behaviour. Often we assume that we are doing what we want to do, but perhaps are merely doing what we think we ‘should’, because this inter­nalized system of social control has become so effective. Feminists have found Foucault’s ideas very useful, for example, in trying to understand how and why women discipline and shape their bodies in line with current discourses about what makes an attractive female body (see Chapter 5).

Foucault is important for the sociology of gender because he allows an understanding of how particular sets of ideas or meanings (discourses) have material effects upon bodies, but some of the pitfalls associated with structuralism remain. Much of Foucault’s work is criticized for under­emphasizing agency and painting a picture of docile bodies determined

if not by structures, then by the internalization of power. These pitfalls perhaps emerge because Foucault maintains an attachment to the world of material things, even if seeing it as shaped by meanings. This makes him a rather structural post-structuralist, but it also illustrates that materiality and meaning are not always so distinct. Links between ideas and economic or other forms of materiality have also been important within feminist thought, although distinctions can be made between ‘materialist’ feminism and a post-structuralist feminism interested in meaning.