“Poststructuralism and the New Humanism” by Jean-Jacques Thomas and Jeff Loveland: Summary and Critique

Introduction: Transition from Structuralism to Poststructuralism

• The article begins with an analogy to Pieter Bruegel’s “Tower of Babel,” reflecting the collaborative, yet fragmenting, nature of structuralism and its movement away from its foundational linguistic focus (Thomas & Loveland, 1992, p. 61).
• The transition of key figures like Barthes, Deleuze, and Foucault from structuralist to poststructuralist paradigms highlights a broader intellectual evolution, focusing on fragmentary realities over holistic systems (p. 63).

Deleuze’s Critique of Structuralism

• Gilles Deleuze’s works, including Proust et les Signes (1964, 1970), illustrate the shift from structuralism’s systematic approach to the fragmented, anti-totalizing perspective of poststructuralism.
• Deleuze challenges the dominance of “logos” (unifying reason), favoring a “rhizomatic” model where meaning arises from discrete, interconnected fragments rather than structured systems (p. 64).

The Influence of Modernity and Science

• Lyotard’s La Condition Postmoderne (1979) contextualizes structuralism within the scientific positivism of modernity, emphasizing objectivity and systematic rigor (p. 65).
• Figures like Roland Barthes initially embraced structuralism’s scientific rigor but later critiqued its totalizing tendencies, transitioning to semiological approaches more attuned to cultural and symbolic nuances (p. 66).

Poststructuralism as a Reactionary Movement

• Poststructuralism critiques structuralism’s totalitarian implications by rejecting its fixed systems, advocating for indeterminacy, and emphasizing micro-narratives over grand narratives (p. 67).
• This reaction led to a reevaluation of prior principles, marking structuralism as outdated and favoring individual, decentralized perspectives (p. 68).

Debates Between Modernists and Postmodernists

• Poststructuralism’s emergence paralleled the rise of postmodernism, characterized by its critique of modernist ideals like universal truth and scientific rationality (p. 69).
• Figures like Habermas criticized postmodern thinkers for undermining Enlightenment principles, while poststructuralists like Derrida and Lyotard rejected the pursuit of universal consensus (p. 72).

“The Cloud Theory” and Intellectual Fragmentation

• The article uses “The Cloud Theory” to describe the nebulous nature of poststructuralist thought, which avoids rigid definitions and embraces ambiguity (p. 69).
• Critics argue that this approach reflects intellectual stagnation, while proponents see it as a necessary evolution beyond rigid frameworks (p. 70).

The Emergence of New Humanism

• In response to poststructuralism, a “New Humanism” emerged, seeking to reconcile modernist values with contemporary intellectual needs.
• This movement emphasizes universal values, intersubjectivity, and a return to human-centered critique, contrasting the individualism and relativism of poststructuralism (p. 73).
• Thinkers like Luc Ferry and Alain Renaut advocate for a reengagement with Enlightenment ideals to address societal challenges (p. 74).

Conclusion: Reaffirming Humanism in Literary and Cultural Critique

• The article concludes by advocating for a balance between modernist universals and the insights of poststructuralism, enabling a richer understanding of literature and society (p. 75).
• The “New Humanism” aims to move beyond the intellectual limitations of both structuralism and poststructuralism, restoring dignity and coherence to human thought (p. 76).

1. Structuralism

• Critique of Structuralist Rigidity: The article challenges structuralism’s focus on universal systems and “structural laws,” arguing that such frameworks fail to account for the complexity and fragmentation of modern texts (Thomas & Loveland, 1992, p. 61).
• Highlighting the Limits of Totalizing Frameworks: The authors emphasize the inadequacy of structuralism’s reliance on fixed meanings, encouraging a move towards more flexible, interpretive approaches (p. 64).

2. Poststructuralism

• Advocacy for Fragmentation and Decentralization: The article reinforces the poststructuralist emphasis on breaking away from unified, hierarchical systems to embrace fragmented, rhizomatic structures (p. 64).
• Promotion of Anti-Logos Thinking: It supports poststructuralist critiques of the “Logos,” advocating for texts as collections of disconnected, diverse elements rather than cohesive wholes (p. 63).
• Introduction of “Cloud Theory”: A metaphor for the nebulous and decentralized nature of poststructuralist thought, contributing to debates on indeterminacy in literary theory (p. 69).

3. Semiotics

• Critique of Saussurean Semiotics: The article highlights the limitations of Saussure’s sign theory, particularly its dependence on relationships of difference, and explores poststructuralist alternatives emphasizing fluid, fragmented signs (p. 64).
• Contribution to Semiological Analysis: It builds on Barthes’ transition from structuralist semiotics to a broader, culturally nuanced semiology, focusing on dynamic interpretations of signs (p. 66).

4. Postmodernism

• Connection Between Postmodernism and Poststructuralism: The article draws parallels between the two movements, particularly their shared rejection of grand narratives and universal truths in favor of localized, contingent perspectives (p. 72).
• Critique of Postmodernism’s Relativism: While acknowledging its influence, the authors critique postmodernism’s tendency toward intellectual ambiguity and its dismissal of Enlightenment values (p. 69).

5. New Historicism

• Contextualizing Structuralism and Poststructuralism Historically: The article situates these movements within broader intellectual and cultural shifts, such as the influence of scientific positivism and the decline of Enlightenment ideals (p. 65).
• Reinvention of Humanism: It advocates for the inclusion of historical and cultural specificity in redefining universal human values, enriching New Historicist approaches (p. 73).

6. Reader-Response Theory

• Focus on Subjectivity and Individual Interpretation: The article contributes to debates on the role of the reader by emphasizing the importance of individual perspectives and autonomy in interpreting texts (p. 68).
• Challenges to Objective Meaning: It aligns with reader-response theory’s rejection of fixed, authorial intent, promoting subjective and decentralized readings (p. 64).

7. Humanism and New Humanism

• Reintroduction of Universal Values: The authors advocate for a “New Humanism” that restores dignity, universalism, and intersubjectivity to literary theory, countering the relativism of poststructuralism (p. 73).
• Emphasis on Ethical and Political Dimensions: By promoting human-centered critique, the article repositions literary theory as a tool for ethical and societal transformation (p. 74).

8. Critical Theory

• Engagement with Enlightenment Ideals: The article critiques poststructuralist and postmodernist departures from Enlightenment principles, contributing to ongoing critical theory debates on the role of reason and universality (p. 72).
• Advocacy for Dialogue Between Movements: It encourages bridging gaps between modernist and postmodernist thought, enriching critical theory’s capacity for intellectual synthesis (p. 74).

9. Comparative Literary Studies

• Interdisciplinary Approach: By referencing figures like Lyotard, Deleuze, and Habermas, the article contributes to comparative studies by bridging philosophical, literary, and cultural critiques (p. 71).
• Cross-Cultural Perspectives: It highlights tensions between French poststructuralism and German critical theory, fostering a global dialogue in literary studies (p. 70).

1. Lack of Practical Application

• Critics argue that the concepts of “Cloud Theory” and decentralization are too abstract, making it difficult to apply these ideas effectively to practical literary analysis.
• The article’s emphasis on theoretical ambiguity might alienate readers seeking concrete examples or applications.

2. Overgeneralization of Structuralism and Poststructuralism

• The article tends to oversimplify structuralism as rigid and totalizing while presenting poststructuralism as entirely fragmented, ignoring the nuances within both movements.
• It doesn’t fully address the contributions of structuralist figures who embraced flexibility, such as later works of Barthes.

3. Idealization of “New Humanism”

• Critics argue that the advocacy for “New Humanism” risks reverting to overly idealistic, universal frameworks that poststructuralism rightfully critiques.
• The claim that “universal values” can bridge the gaps between movements may appear overly optimistic and dismissive of cultural and contextual specificity.

4. Limited Engagement with Diverse Perspectives

• The article primarily focuses on French and European intellectual traditions, neglecting contributions from non-Western literary theories or perspectives that might challenge its claims.
• Critics point out that it doesn’t adequately engage with feminist, postcolonial, or other intersectional critiques of poststructuralism and New Humanism.

5. Ambiguity in Critiquing Postmodernism

• While critiquing postmodernism’s relativism, the article doesn’t fully differentiate how poststructuralism avoids the same pitfalls, leading to potential conflation of the two.
• The rejection of postmodernism’s skepticism towards universal truths may appear reductive or dismissive of legitimate critiques of Enlightenment ideals.

6. Tension Between Theory and Praxis

• The theoretical debate between structuralism, poststructuralism, and New Humanism remains largely academic, with limited discussion on practical implications for real-world societal or cultural issues.
• Critics question whether the proposed “New Humanism” adequately addresses contemporary challenges like digital media, globalization, and systemic inequalities.

7. Overemphasis on European Contexts

• The focus on European thinkers (Deleuze, Barthes, Lyotard, etc.) marginalizes non-European contributions, reinforcing a Eurocentric perspective on literary theory.
• The lack of dialogue with American or Asian critical schools weakens the universality the article aspires to promote.

8. Potential Contradictions in Universalism

• The article’s call for universal principles may conflict with its critique of structuralism’s universal frameworks, leading to perceived theoretical inconsistencies.
• Critics argue that imposing “universal values” risks ignoring the diversity of human experiences and perspectives.