Understanding Poststructuralism

Understanding Movements in Modern Thought

by James Williams

Understanding Poststructuralism is a lucid guide to some of the most exciting and controversial ideas in contemporary thought. James Williams examines the key works of the movement's most important theorists - Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva, Lyotard, and Deleuze - providing detailed summaries of their main points and a critical analysis of their core arguments. In jargon-free prose, he explains such ideas as deconstruction, libidinal economics, genealogy, and transcendental empiricism in terms of their value to critical thinking and to contemporary issues. Although a sympathetic interpreter of poststructuralism, Williams does not dismiss the criticism of analytic philosophers but provides a much-needed balanced assessment of this movement.

Genres: Philosophy

192 pages, Hardcover

First published October 24, 2005

Reviews

[Christine Cordula Dantas]

This book clarified several issues and (possibly) misunderstandings I had on writers such as Derrida, Deleuze and Foucault, and offered an introduction to Lyotard and Kristeva, whose books I have never read. It written for undergraduate students as the target audience, but general readers will benefit greatly from the book. The positive aspects of poststructuralism, as for instance concerning Enlightenment— not being against rational thought, in favor of obscurantism, but actually offering new and careful views, criticisms and creative connections perhaps beyond rationalism, is some of such clarifications from the present book (or at least a defense/interpretation by the author). Certainly, my reading of those authors will be made a little bit more interesting and contextualized, even though I might not agree with their views or grasp their intentions, but perhaps that is the way it should be... Highly recommended.

[Mike]

Interesting exposure to the thinkers and material covered, but probably best for a reader who has already read some of the works in question or at least been introduced to the terminology. As it is, it all feels rather fuzzy and abstract to me, and it's hard to tell to what extent this is a reflection of the concepts themselves vs. my own failure to understand essential points. (And I read it in discussion with a group!)