Post-Classical Philosophy

Structuralism and Postmodernism

In the 1950s and 60s, a movement known as "structuralism" emerged among French intellectuals, primarily in the humanities. The Latin noun structura derives from the verb struere (to construct or build) and can be translated as "arrangement" or "composition." At the core of structuralism lies a holistic idea of the logical primacy of the whole over its parts, asserting that an object should be studied as a system, with attention focused not merely on its elements but on the relations and connections that unite and ultimately form them.

Structuralist research primarily targeted social and cultural phenomena, analyzed primarily through the lens of language. Generally, structuralists were guided by positivist motives, seeking to liberate themselves from the dominance of philosophy, which had been viewed as the foundation of human knowledge. Thus, structuralism emerges as a theory or method but consciously avoids philosophical generalizations.

Another significant motivation for structuralists was the predominance of synchrony over diachrony, and of the hierarchical over the historical. They were interested in the constantly reproduced (invariant) patterns of human activity, cultural mechanisms, social connections, and comparisons of these across various cultures and societies, rather than in the historical development of society.

The term "structuralism" is typically associated with the works of French thinkers such as Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), Jacques Lacan (1901-1981), and Roland Barthes (1915-1980). The foundational ideas from which structuralism later developed were articulated in the works of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), who refused to study isolated linguistic phenomena and initiated an examination of language as a cohesive system that determines its components. Language is a system of signs (words) — objects meant to refer to other objects, distinct from themselves. As de Saussure notes, a sign inherently combines two aspects — the formal, termed the "signifier" (the thought), and the content-related "signified" (the object of thought). He asserts that the meaning of a word is not established by the individual using it or by the object it denotes; rather, it depends on its "place" among other words and its interactions with them. Language, in this view, is an objectively existing coherent system, independent of speech, and is primary relative to individual acts of expression. In the 1930s, influenced by Saussure's ideas, American ethnolinguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf formulated what is known as the "linguistic relativity hypothesis."

Since language is the primary means of structuring reality, the way individuals comprehend the world depends on the language they speak. Our knowledge is never absolute or impartial.

Two Saussurean theses were particularly important for the further development of structuralism:
— Speakers use linguistic structures non-reflexively; these structures perform their regulatory functions without rising to the level of consciousness.
— Linguistic structures are obligatory; individuals adhere to (or violate) these rules but do not create or change them arbitrarily.

In the 1940s and 50s, these ideas were embraced by French cultural theorist and anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. He posits that all cultural interactions (such as dining practices, kinship, taboos, etc.) in primitive societies are organized on the same principles and according to the same rules that govern verbal expression (verbal communication). However, the individual does not act as the subject of speech; instead, they are merely carriers of the collective norm that they have internalized, which unconsciously dictates their semiotic actions regarding the "servicing" of the true speaker, represented by myth, in which the individual participates in an anonymous "utterance," independent of their own will and desires.

In the fields of literary studies and criticism, Roland Barthes further developed structuralist ideas in the 1950s to 70s. Early in his career, Barthes held Marxist positions, viewing language as an ideological tool of class struggle. Only language linked to direct production is free from ideological baggage. Any universal statement is ideologically engaged, reflecting specific class interests. The bourgeoisie actively disguises this reality with the false neutrality (even "naturalness") of literary expression, which grants literature the character of myth.

As language permeates all spheres of human activity, changing language means changing the world. Barthes believed that structural-semiotic methodology should become the instrument of such transformations. Social revolution must be achieved through changes in the ownership of symbolic systems. Traditional forms of writing (such as the novel) should be dismantled in favor of the "text," which is not bound by any genre constraints and functions not as an aesthetic product but as a type of practice that creates "the conditions of its own possibility."

In 1967, Barthes penned his most famous work, the essay "The Death of the Author," in which he developed one of the key concepts of late 20th-century Western philosophical thought. He argues that the writer and their created work are unrelated. He critiques a mode of reading that incorporates the author's personality (historical context, psychological traits, personal qualities) into the elucidation of the text's meaning. Such an approach confines the text to a single possible interpretation, imposing limitations on it, "imprisoning" it. Meanwhile, every text is layered and polysemic. What is "read" from it depends not so much on the writer as on the reader. The author is merely a "scriptor" (a recorder), whose function regarding the text is one of "production," but not of "explanation."

In the mid-1950s, psychiatrist Jacques Lacan, a follower of Sigmund Freud and the creator of the French school of psychoanalysis, proposed a structuralist reinterpretation of Freudian doctrine, influenced by the works of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss. Drawing on Freud's interpretation of linguistic slips (errors and misprints) as specific manifestations of the unconscious, Lacan developed two interrelated theses: "the unconscious is the language of the Other" and "the unconscious is structured like a language." The Other (and hence the unconscious) is viewed not as a person distinct from me but as the language of the community to which I belong from birth. Through language, in language, and via language, I identify with the Other, affirming my belonging to the "pact" that constitutes society. In language unfolds my existence, the way I know myself, and the way others know me. In this manner, Lacan "debiologizes" and "desexualizes" Freud.

Conversely, he reinterprets Saussure's fundamental notion of the inseparability of the signifier and the signified. According to Saussure, they coexist like the two sides of a single sheet of paper. Lacan, however, "liberates" the signifier, which thus acquires the capacity for continuous cultural mutations — slips, shifts, substitutions, and condensations. The primary function of the signifier becomes the expression of desire.

Lacan's themes (the analysis of the "mirror stage" and its significance for personality formation, the concept of three dimensions, or "orders," of human existence: the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic, among others) entered philosophical discourse, becoming part of the lexicon and a subject of reflection for nearly every "Continental" philosopher from the late 20th to early 21st century. However, their most significant consequence was a new emphasis on the dynamic aspects of consciousness, which are not characteristic of "classical" structuralism.

As understood from the preceding discourse, structuralists argue that any cultural or social system is supported by an immutable (pre-historical) logical framework that defines it and serves as its expressive medium. What we consider "historical development" is, in fact, merely a movement and transformation of the expressive means or embodiments of this foundational structure. However, by the late 1960s, it became evident that the conceptual constructions and frameworks primarily formed through the examination of primitive cultural communities—exemplified by the significant figure of Claude Lévi-Strauss—were inadequate (incommensurate, inconsistent) for the Western society of the latter half of the twentieth century. Numerous social movements (predominantly youth movements) adopting leftist slogans akin to Trotsky’s concept of "permanent revolution" paradoxically articulated the idea that variability constitutes the very foundation of contemporary social order. In contrast, any form of (stability) is not self-sustaining but merely pretends to be so, striving to halt the flow of change and affirm itself, particularly through ideological self-justification. Structuralism began to be perceived as an expression of this latter tendency. The graffiti “Structures do not go out into the streets!” became the rallying cry for French intellectuals, emblazoned on the walls of Paris in 1968.

The overarching theoretical framework of post-structuralism is constructed upon the recognition of the significance of extra-structural dynamic components of socio-cultural development. Criticism subsequently extends to the entire circle of classical metaphysical concepts—addressing issues of truth, subjectivity, rationality, and more. Traditional positions associated with these terms are critiqued as totalitarian, discriminatory, substantialist, and naturalistic. In a broader context, any social institutions, systems of knowledge, and cultural formations (discourses) are analyzed by post-structuralists as being intertwined with forms of power, essentially aimed at establishing and maintaining hierarchical orders. Post-structuralism posits that such power structures must be dismantled or modified through "subversive," "diversionary" theoretical practices. This foundation supports the concepts of thinkers such as Jacques Baudrillard, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Julia Kristeva, Jean-François Lyotard, and others who identify with post-structuralism. It is noteworthy that the term "post-structuralism" lacks a clear definition; rather, it serves as an umbrella term encompassing a diverse array of authors who advocate significantly different, and often contradictory, theoretical viewpoints, yet share a critical stance towards structuralism while inheriting from it an attention to language and other expressive means of culture, examined through the lens of their signifying nature (the analysis of mass media, popular culture, and everyday life plays a substantial role in post-structuralist studies).

One of the most influential theorists of this current is Jacques Derrida, who proposed, in his own words, a "practice" (Derrida refrains from labeling it a method—he regards it as "neither method, nor analysis, nor critique") of deconstruction. The term "deconstruction" clearly draws on Heidegger's (and inherited from Nietzsche's) notion of "destruction" and combines the familiar root "struere" with two prefixes of opposing direction: "de-" (its Ukrainian equivalent being "роз-" as in "роз’єднати") and "con-" (the Ukrainian equivalent being "з-", "по-" as in "поєднати").

The procedure consists of simultaneously disassembling, deconstructing, and, conversely, connecting, reassembling the text. Writing exists differently from spoken language. The latter is constituted by a context known to the participants of each conversation. In contrast, the text (and the philosophical tradition, claims Derrida, is fundamentally written) can traverse different meaningful contexts and, moreover, seeks to become actual for any or each of them—essentially aiming to free itself from contextual dependency, to "escape" from it. Phonocentrism and logocentrism (interpreting the text as a "recorded conversation" or "noted thought") prove inadequate for understanding its own nature. "Meaning" is constructed either by the reader during the reading process or imposed by the author; in both cases, a repressive procedure concerning the text's authenticity occurs. The goal of deconstruction is to liberate the text from the interpreter’s authority, utilizing the hidden "hints" within it that align with the techniques of the text's "escape" into a realm beyond contextuality—this is the "overarching task" of deconstruction. In this light, the text emerges as a multifaceted, multi-layered phenomenon, filled with internal interactions and interrelations of concepts and metaphors, as well as echoes from other texts. The pathway that deconstruction follows to reach its objectives is always distinct; thus, its methods resist generalization or systematization. In its totality, Derrida asserts, it resembles the behavior of a bird attempting to divert danger from its nest with hatchlings. Consequently, Derrida perceives his primary task not as "renaming" the named within the text or ontology, but rather as "renaming"—a diversion against meaning directed at asserting the impossibility of expressing (recounting) the "expressed." The signified in the text can only be another signifier.

A number of post-structuralist ideas have been developed within the framework of postmodernism—one of the most influential ideological currents that has become a common mode of self-awareness for Western culture in the last two decades of the twentieth century. This concept, formed by the conjunction of two Latin words—"post" (after) and "modernus" (new, contemporary)—aims to underscore the polemical opposition of postmodernism to modernity, a worldview that emerged during the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, culminated in the Enlightenment, and continued to dominate European consciousness until the mid-twentieth century.

A comprehensive critique of the ideological foundations of modernity is presented in Jean-François Lyotard's work "The Postmodern Condition" ("La condition postmoderne") (1979). According to Lyotard, the distinguishing feature of modernity is not a particular substantive philosophical thesis. Modernity is an era of grand (or meta-) narratives, which seek to order, explain, and express reality on unified principles and through a system of interconnected and sequentially articulated propositions. A meta-narrative is not so much a linguistic construct as it is an epistemological principle embodied in various forms of artistic culture (notably in the novel), social and political institutions, as well as in religious, scientific, and philosophical systems. The dominant meta-narratives of modernity include ideas of progress, history, humanism, and individual freedom. The "toxicity" of such intellectual constructs lies not in their falsity, but in their capacity to suppress, marginalize, and silence any alternative discourses.

In contrast, postmodernism is founded upon a pluralism of narratives (and consequently the absence of a "meta-narrative"), variable rationalities, the relativity of meanings, and a linguistic play that forms the antithesis of narrativity. No conceivable form of rationality can claim priority or normativity.

For the postmodernist, the metaphor of the world becomes a shattered sculpture, among the fragments of which human existence must persist. Each fragment seemingly points to the lost wholeness, yearning for it and calling upon it, yet theoretical reason acknowledges that reassembling the fragments is impossible, moreover, that they never constituted a unified object or essence.

As previously noted, postmodernism articulates its foundational principles as an antithesis to the tenets of modern culture.

In the era of postmodernism, the perception of time undergoes a radical transformation. Modern society is oriented toward the future—terrifying or beautiful, depending on the beliefs of individual thinkers—whereas in the consciousness of the postmodernist, "everything has already happened." The future exists in a formal sense, but in a substantive understanding, it simply does not exist: from now on, we will always deal with the past—its remnants, traces, and claims.

Postmodernism rejects the naïve-realist idea of modernity regarding the existence of an objective reality and the possibility of knowing it "as it is." Objectivity is not opposed to human consciousness (such opposition is recognized as a manifestation of modern "binary thinking"); any "reality" is viewed as a conceptual construct, a derivative of social and scientific practices and language. This approach applies both to the examination of nature and to the perception of society and history. Consequently, postmodernism denies the fundamental distinction between error and truth that is central to classical (modern) science. The latter is predominantly regarded as a socio-political phenomenon, a tool of coercive hierarchization of knowledge, embodying strategies for the exercise of power.

Postmodernism rejects yet another cornerstone of modern philosophy—the notion of a self-sustaining foundation, intuitively and indubitably given, upon which a systematically constructed body of knowledge must rest (such as Descartes’ Cogito). The "final instance" is absent; consequently, any knowledge is marked by incompleteness, inexhaustibility, and insubordination.

Postmodernism acknowledges not only the fundamental pluralism of the reality in which humanity exists but also the plurality of ways in which this reality is reflected. It is characterized by epistemological relativism and, as a result, a critical stance towards the ambitions of reason to secure a preeminent position within the system of human cognitive means and the universal significance and applicability of logical requirements. Reason and logic emerge as conceptual constructs, functioning solely within specific intellectual traditions from which they arise.

Whereas modernity exhibited a tendency to construct a maximally general philosophical theory that could encompass the various aspects and moments of nature and the social world within a single framework, serving as a synthesis and compendium of all knowledge attained by the natural and social sciences, postmodernism repudiates this idea, not only as an unattainable dream but also as a false and pathological totalizing tendency of thought (E. Levinas).

The postmodern interpretation of the problem of language is based on a critical attitude towards its capacity to represent reality beyond itself (to be, in the words of American pragmatist R. Rorty, a "mirror of nature," as Enlightenment thought interpreted it). Language is semantically self-sufficient and self-referential: the meaning of a word is not a static reflection of things existing in the world or of ideas in our minds but a range formed by the differences from the semantic ranges of other words (F. de Saussure). Since meaning is a function of other meanings, it is never fully present in the consciousness of the speaker or listener but remains in a state of constant flux. Self-reference (the inability to transcend one's own limits, to find and point to something beyond oneself) is inherent not only in natural languages but also in specialized artificial languages. Any discourse—scientific, medical, religious, etc.—is embedded in social practices, reflecting the values of specific societies and never possessing universal significance.

In its understanding of humanity, postmodernism denies the existence of human nature or specific essential characteristics of humanity. There are no traits, inclinations, or motivations inherent to humans as a species. The entirety of human constitution and all aspects of human existence are entirely and completely socially determined. Similarly, human identity (self-awareness as such) is regarded as temporary, historically fleeting, and defined by numerous socio-cultural factors. As Michel Foucault, a notable figure in 20th-century Western philosophy, asserts, "It is clear that man is neither the most ancient nor the most constant of the problems posed by human knowledge. When one takes a relatively short span of time and a limited geographical horizon—European culture from the beginning of the 16th century—it becomes evident that man within it is a recent invention [...] and its end may be near. [...] If these dispositions disappear as they once emerged [...], then one can be assured that man will vanish, just as a face vanishes when drawn in the sand at the water’s edge."

Progress in the social, intellectual, and artistic spheres is viewed by postmodernists solely as an Enlightenment construct. In reality, events do not string together on a singular meaningful thread; rather, they coexist in the form of a disordered and unrhythmic, non-hierarchical multitude. An important component of the postmodern paradigm is not only the thesis of the absence of progress but also the belief that in the social, intellectual, and artistic realms, all ideas, techniques, means, and modes of existence have already been invented and were once utilized, implying that human culture is incapable of creating anything new. No one can claim novelty in ideas, images, or techniques. If they appear as such, this merely indicates a lack of erudition. The foundational concepts of the postmodern perception of culture are "library" and "archive," in which, among other things, there resonates an assessment of the "raw" (non-hierarchical) nature of the cultural values accumulated by humanity.

Postmodernism rejects the avant-garde orientation of art towards novelty; the focus of artistic interests lies not in innovation but in recombination or the new application of already existing artistic means, techniques, and images, predominantly through ironic citation.

Modern consciousness believed that the practical application of science and technology would enable society to change for the better, to advance more swiftly along the path of progress, and thus, in the future, it would become increasingly humane, just, educated, and prosperous. Postmodernism indicates that such expectations were illusory. Unbridled and misguided aspirations for the scientific and technological conquest of the world have resulted in the emergence of more powerful means of destruction and have brought humanity to the brink of annihilation, while science and knowledge have turned out to be refined instruments of one person's subjugation of another.

Thus, contemporary philosophy is characterized by a diversity of directions and currents, many of which arose in the 19th century, developed in the 20th century, and remain significant to this day. Despite this diversity, one can identify several common foundational traits: a rejection of excessive optimism associated with the predominance of reason, an awareness of the inevitable presence of irrational factors within humanity and history, the recognition of pluralism in approaches, and reflexivity.