can anyone explain post structuralism in history? (1 Viewer)

[Mustafa Mond]

Hey All,
I was just wondering if anyone could explain the main tenets of post structuralism in regards to history? I've read some articles on the Internet about it but they were mostly confusing and seemed to assume knowledge I don't have. Since this is a relatively important concept for modern historiography, any enlightenment would be appreciated. Thanks,
Mustafa

 

[Plebeian]

If you are doing postmodernism, it is fairly similar (poststructuralism being the precursor to postmodernism, in historiography at least).

Basically it's centred around some theorists (Derrida is one I think) who suggest that meaning is put into words (ie. structures of language) by the reader, not the author. This means that for any primary or secondary source, there are as many interpretations of the source's meaning as there are readers.

Consequently, sources are not really able to provide historical truths, because all we can derive in the present is interpretations, and all different interpretations are equally valid. This flows into the postmodernist idea of all history being based in the present and really being the ideology of the author rather than actual truth.