“Foucault and Poststructuralism” by Alan D. Schrift: Summary and Critique

Introduction to Foucault and Poststructuralism

• The essay situates Michel Foucault (1926–84) as a pivotal figure in the development of poststructuralism, emphasizing his reliance on Nietzsche’s critique of knowledge and power.
• Poststructuralism, emerging in 1960s France, diverged from structuralism by rejecting universal truths and focusing on history, power, and discourse.
• Key themes in poststructuralism were shaped by thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze, who reinterpreted Nietzsche’s ideas to critique the foundations of knowledge and subjectivity.

“It was through Nietzsche that those thinkers in France whose work initiated the movement called poststructuralism first distinguished themselves from the structuralists who preceded them” (Schrift, 2018, p. 177).

Historical Context and Philosophical Foundation

• Poststructuralism responded to structuralism’s scientistic focus and synchronic methods. Thinkers like Foucault drew on historical ontology to understand the evolution of knowledge systems.
• Structuralists like Lévi-Strauss emphasized static systems, while poststructuralists like Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida analyzed historical and temporal phenomena.

“Unlike Kant’s transcendental project, for Foucault this order is a historical a priori… prior to experience” (Schrift, 2018, p. 179).

Core Themes of Poststructuralism

1. The Return to History
   • Foucault’s concept of a historical a priori emphasizes how social constructs evolve historically.
   • Foucault’s The History of Madness traces the shifting treatment of the “mad” as subjects of confinement to patients requiring medical care, demonstrating history’s role in constructing experience.

“The guiding thesis of his early work was that there exists, at any given time, an order of things that makes the social functioning of the time possible” (Schrift, 2018, p. 179).

2. Rethinking the Subject
   • Poststructuralists rejected existentialist and humanist notions of the autonomous subject.
   • Foucault analyzed the subject as a construct of power and discourse rather than a universal essence.

“How, under what conditions and in what forms can something like a subject appear in the order of discourse?” (Schrift, 2018, p. 181).

3. Emphasis on Difference
   • Drawing on Nietzsche and Saussure, poststructuralists like Deleuze and Lyotard highlighted difference as central to understanding language and power.
   • Deleuze critiqued Hegelian negation, proposing instead that difference is affirmative and productive.

“Nietzsche substitutes the practical element of difference, the object of affirmation and enjoyment” (Schrift, 2018, p. 182).

4. Philosophical Ethics
   • Poststructuralism revitalized ethics by separating it from transcendent moral frameworks.
   • Foucault’s later works, including The History of Sexuality, explore how individuals ethically construct themselves in relation to power and freedom.

“Freedom is the ontological condition of ethics… the practice of freedom” (Schrift, 2018, p. 186).

Poststructuralism’s Legacy

• Poststructuralism influenced diverse fields such as gender studies, critical theory, and aesthetics.
• Continuing the critique of structuralism and modernity, poststructuralist philosophy remains vital in interrogating contemporary socio-political and epistemological issues.

“Few developments in the past half‐century in aesthetics, literary studies, film studies, gender and queer theory… cannot be traced back, directly or indirectly, to the work of poststructuralist thinkers” (Schrift, 2018, p. 186).

Conclusion

• Schrift concludes that poststructuralism, with its focus on difference, history, and ethics, redefined philosophy and continues to shape the humanities.
• With ongoing publications of Foucault’s lectures and Derrida’s seminars, the movement’s influence endures.

“One can imagine poststructuralism’s influence on the humanities and social sciences extending well into the future” (Schrift, 2018, p. 186).

1. Introduction of Historical Criticism into Theory

• Foucault’s concept of the historical a priori emphasizes that knowledge systems are historically contingent, influencing literary studies to consider the temporal and cultural specificities of texts.
• The genealogical method redefined how critics approach the evolution of literary forms and genres by analyzing power and discourse.

“Foucault’s entire philosophical oeuvre deeply inflected with an attention to history… certain ideas can be thought, certain perceptions, values, and distinctions become possible” (Schrift, 2018, p. 179).

2. The Subject in Literary Narratives

• The exploration of subjectivation influenced how texts are analyzed regarding the construction of characters and identities through narrative discourse and societal norms.
• Poststructuralist ideas shifted focus from authorial intent to how texts create or destabilize subject positions.

“The subject is… something that has been historically created and Foucault’s work… is engaged in analyzing the various ways that human beings are transformed into subjects” (Schrift, 2018, p. 181).

3. Deconstruction of Universal Narratives

• Lyotard’s incredulity toward metanarratives encouraged literary theorists to question grand narratives in literary and cultural criticism, such as the Enlightenment narrative of progress or Marxist teleology.
• Emphasis on little narratives shifted focus to localized, diverse, and fragmented perspectives in literature.

“Lyotard suggests we look instead to less ambitious, ‘little narratives’ that refrain from totalizing claims” (Schrift, 2018, p. 183).

4. Language and Power Dynamics

• Poststructuralism’s focus on difference and Saussurean linguistics influenced the study of semiotics and the relational meaning of signs in texts.
• The power/knowledge nexus has redefined how critics analyze the influence of institutional forces on language and discourse in literary works.

“Poststructuralism is marked by a renewed concern with thinking historically” and by an “analysis of relations of power, discourse, and the construction of the subject” (Schrift, 2018, p. 177).

5. Ethics in Literature

• Foucault’s exploration of ethics as the practice of freedom shifted literary analysis toward examining the moral frameworks and ethical dilemmas presented in texts.
• Critics began to analyze how literature reflects or contests ethical norms and self-construction.

“Freedom is the ontological condition of ethics… the practice of freedom” (Schrift, 2018, p. 186).

6. Aesthetics of Difference

• Deleuze’s reinterpretation of Nietzsche’s will to power emphasized affirmation and multiplicity, influencing how literary criticism values creative difference and diversity in texts.
• The concept of simulacra challenged traditional notions of representation, encouraging the study of intertextuality and the destabilization of original/authentic meanings.

“What returns is the repetition of difference: ‘It is not the “same” or the “one” which comes back in the eternal return but… diversity and that which differs'” (Schrift, 2018, p. 182).

7. Critique of Structuralism in Literary Studies

• Poststructuralism responded to structuralism’s focus on static systems by emphasizing fluidity, temporality, and the constructedness of literary forms.
• Literary studies expanded to include historical, political, and social forces shaping textual interpretation.

“Poststructuralism can be viewed as a corrective to the overemphasis on synchrony that one finds in structuralist writing” (Schrift, 2018, p. 178).

8. Feminist and Gender Critique

• Schrift references the inclusion of thinkers like Julia Kristeva and Hélène Cixous, whose work on sexual difference and gender construction reshaped feminist literary theory.
• Poststructuralism’s focus on discourse and power informed critical gender studies and the deconstruction of patriarchal literary traditions.

“Poststructuralists turned their attention toward… questions of sexual difference and gender construction” (Schrift, 2018, p. 177).

1. Overgeneralization of Poststructuralist Thinkers

• Schrift groups disparate thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Deleuze under the umbrella of poststructuralism, despite their philosophical differences.
• Critics argue that this approach oversimplifies the nuances of their individual contributions and intellectual trajectories.

“The labels ‘poststructuralist,’ ‘deconstructionist,’ and ‘postmodernist’ are often used interchangeably… despite differences in context and focus” (Schrift, 2018, p. 178).

2. Limited Engagement with Feminist Theorists

• The text provides minimal discussion of feminist poststructuralists such as Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, and Hélène Cixous, reducing their contributions to passing mentions.
• This lack of depth may diminish the perceived impact of feminist theory within poststructuralism.

“Derrida and French feminist theorists… are only mentioned in passing” (Schrift, 2018, p. 178).

3. Reliance on Abstract Concepts

• Critics may find the reliance on abstract theoretical terms like “historical a priori” or “genealogy” insufficiently grounded in concrete examples or applications, especially for newcomers to the field.
• This can make the work inaccessible to those unfamiliar with the philosophical background.

“Foucault’s concept of a historical a priori… neither transcendental nor universal, this order is a historically specific constellation” (Schrift, 2018, p. 179).

4. Lack of Critique of Poststructuralism Itself

• The chapter does not critically examine potential limitations or contradictions within poststructuralist thought, such as its tendency to reject universal truths while relying on overarching critiques of structuralism.
• This lack of internal critique may weaken the balance of the analysis.

5. Neglect of Practical Applications

• While the text explores theoretical contributions, it provides limited discussion on how poststructuralist ideas influence practical applications in literature or other disciplines.
• Readers seeking direct applications to literary criticism may find this omission a limitation.

6. Underrepresentation of Non-French Thinkers

• The focus is heavily on French poststructuralists, overlooking contributions from other regions or non-European perspectives, which could enrich the analysis.
• Critics might argue that this narrow scope reinforces the dominance of European intellectual traditions.

7. Ambiguity in Defining Poststructuralism

• The chapter acknowledges that “poststructuralism” is a term imposed by anglophone communities, yet it does not fully address the implications of this external categorization for the accuracy of its portrayal.
• This ambiguity leaves room for debate about the coherence and boundaries of the term.

“‘Poststructuralism’ is not a term used in France… it is the name bestowed in the English-speaking philosophical and literary communities” (Schrift, 2018, p. 178).