Derek Attridge et al, "Post-structuralism and the Question of History" (Book Note)

 

The surge of interest in history, both theoretically and practically, has led to a reductive interpretation of poststructuralism, often relegating it to an arcane theory of the past. However, such a characterization oversimplifies its significance. Rather than dismissing poststructuralism as outdated, it is crucial to recognize its enduring relevance in shaping contemporary inquiries into history. This essay aims to elucidate the intricate relationship between poststructuralism, history, and its various manifestations.

 

Poststructuralism, despite its problematic term, remains pivotal in framing today's historical inquiries and driving some of the most innovative scholarly endeavors. The essays in this volume seek to debunk the notion that poststructuralism is antithetical to historical inquiry. Instead, they aim to unravel the complexities inherent in the interplay between structuralism, poststructuralism, and history.

 

Organized into four thematic categories— "History, Marxism, and the Institution," "Difference and History," "Aesthetics and History," and "History as Text"— these essays showcase the diversity of perspectives within the realm of historical discourse. Each essay contributes to the nuanced understanding of poststructuralism's role in shaping historical thought.

 

Among the standout contributions are Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's exploration of reading Marx through a Derridean lens, Tony Bennett's analysis of Marxist literary theory, Jonathan Culler's examination of criticism's institutionalization, Rodolphe Gasché's discourse on aesthetics and history, and Jean-François Lyotard's interpretation of Kant's "historico-political" stance.

 

The editors, Bennington and Young, set the tone for the volume by highlighting the paradoxical nature of attacks on poststructuralism in the name of history. They question the confidence with which critics rely on what is inherently debatable. Drawing on Derrida, they delve into the concept of historicity and the recursive relationship between historicizing texts and textualizing history.

 

In "Demanding History," Bennington challenges the simplistic imperative of "Always historicize!" by problematizing the very notion of historicity. He traces the evolution of Marxist thought, particularly Terry Eagleton's shift towards a textualized understanding of history. Mark Cousins echoes this sentiment, emphasizing the irreducible theoretical dimension within historical writing, which defies attempts at pure transparency.

 

Tony Bennett underscores the limitations of a scientistic approach in Marxism, which often posits a transparent relation to reality, negating its own discursivity and textuality. He critiques the essentializing orientation of much Marxist thought, which seeks to explain texts solely through the conditions of their production. Poststructuralist thought, on the other hand, complicates this by questioning the possibility of transparent access to origins.

 

Theoretical decisions pervade historical writing, enveloping it in a web of mediation that defies scientistic aspirations for pure transparency. This recognition prompts a reevaluation of Marxist theory, urging a shift towards a poststructuralist perspective that acknowledges the inherent textuality of historical narratives.

The interrogation of history within the framework of thinkers like Derrida doesn't render their perspectives "ahistorical," contrary to assertions by new historicists. While emphasizing the textual nature of historical construction, it doesn't reduce the richness of the historical world to mere textuality. Derrida himself clarifies this stance by rejecting the idea of transforming the world into a library through an extension of the concept of text. Instead, he emphasizes that the world exists beyond the confines of textual representation. Gayatri Spivak expands on this by elucidating that Derrida doesn't claim there's nothing outside the text; rather, he highlights the interconnectedness between the verbal text and various external factors, such as socio-cultural, politico-economic, or psychosexual elements, depending on the focus of our inquiry.

 

Contrary to the assertions of new historicists, poststructuralism doesn't herald a "rediscovery" of history, as history was never truly lost, as Rodolphe Gasché contends. Gasché aptly notes that if poststructuralism holds any meaning at all, it lies in its insistence on exploring the conditions of possibility and the fundamental laws governing concepts like structure versus genesis, or aesthetics versus history. This critical approach doesn't aim to rediscover history in a nostalgic sense but rather to approach it anew, with fresh eyes and a deeper understanding of its complexities.

 

the poststructuralist perspective encourages a nuanced understanding of history that transcends simplistic dichotomies between text and reality. It invites scholars to explore the intricate interplay between textual representation and the multifaceted dimensions of the historical world. By acknowledging the complex web of relationships between textuality and external factors, poststructuralism opens up new avenues for historical inquiry, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced interpretation of the past.

 

This approach challenges the notion that history can be neatly categorized or confined within predetermined frameworks. Instead, it encourages scholars to adopt a more flexible and dynamic understanding of historical discourse, one that acknowledges the fluidity and contingency inherent in the construction of historical narratives. By embracing the complexities of history without succumbing to reductionism, poststructuralism offers a fertile ground for intellectual inquiry and a deeper appreciation of the richness of the historical experience.