POSTSTRUCTURAL MASTERY
- A Thesis for people with (relatively) short attention spans
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for admission to Frequent Posters, Level 1K,
Chiff & Fipple Poststructural Pub
By
Carol Ann Skinner
October 2005
Acknowledgements
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my lovely chumsin the C&F community (photo montage created by the Honorable Walden) and to my dog, Daisy, who has provided the kind of stimulating intellectual environment in which a work of this sort can thrive. I would also like to thank all of the faculty of Chiff & Fipple Poststructural Pub and especially my committee members, Walden, emmline, Wombat, jim stone, and susnfx, whose deep understanding of poststructuralism—and the brilliance and sensitivity with which they have passed along their understanding to me–have made what can only be called a life-changing, um, change in my life.
Abstract
Building on the classic framework for poststructuralism put forward by Harold K. Bush, Jr. at Michigan State University (and we all know how anti-poststructuralist a framework is, don’t we?) and the work of Martine Courant Rife, this thesis will demonstrate—or attempt to—that I have, through the careful observation and slavish imitation of the elders of the Frequent Poster Honor Society, succeeded sufficiently in mastering poststructural messageboarding that I am entitled to entry to the Frequent Posters, Level 1K, provisional, as is of course the custom, on the approval of the wider C&F community, each of whom can contact me separately for their “consideration” money and/or editing “favors,” as per agreement.
Thesis
Harold K. Bush, Jr. identifies defining characteristics of poststructuralism, including 1) The Primacy of Theory and 2) The Decentering of the Subject. For a third defining characteristic I turn to Martine Courant Rife: 3) Texts for the Sake of Texts. True, these scholars are both talking about the English classroom, but is a tinwhistle message board fundamentally different from a high school literature or college writing classroom? I think the answer is obvious. I shall address each characteristic and demonstrate my mastery of it.
1) The Primacy of Theory
In contemporary philosophy, it has become incumbent upon every critic to “theorize” every position and critical practice. In effect, “theory” has almost in and of itself become an independent field of study and research in the humanities, designating as it now does any account of whatever conditions determine all meaning and interpretation.—H. K. Bush
Fewer examples of the primacy of theory could be clearer than the one from which I drew my most direct inspiration. Here is Walden, on the publication of his paper-folding book.
With a model of that caliber, it was actually pretty easy to demonstrate my own mastery of the primacy of theory, as the following (mature) example, relating to sports victories, clearly shows. Note the subtle avoidance of the word theory itself.
(2) The Decentering of the Subject
Poststructural critics have called into question the very existence of the human “subject” or “self” posited by “humanism.”…By way of contrast, the poststructural subject or self is seen to be incoherent, disunified, and in effect “decentered,” so that depending upon the commentator a human being is described as, for example, a mere conveyor of unconscious mainstream ideologies, or as simply a “site” in which various cultural constructs and “discursive formations” created and sustained by the structures of power in a given social environment play themselves out. --H.K Bush
It is in this area that I perhaps have struggled the most. The reasons, I believe, are clear enough: this is an area of poststructural weakness within the board itself. Do a search on “discursive formations” or “unconscious mainstream ideologies” and you will see for yourself how we, as a community, fail to articulate this characteristic clearly enough for aspiring Frequent Posters to gain mastery. Nonetheless, the illustrious Level 7K Nanohedron raises us all up with his brilliant self-decentering while at the same time driving home the whole primacy-of-theory thing:
It was only in an exchange with the master himself that I believe the incoherence and disunity of my poststructural self finally emerged with some confidence:
(3) Texts for the Sake of Texts
Crowley divides texts into the poststructural kind and the current-traditional variety. Her version of poststructural defines texts that exist just because they do…Texts are produced in and of themselves, for themselves, and for the sake of other texts…and exist just because they do, just to be happy with other texts.-- Martine Courant Rife (MSU)
One can only imagine that Rife had none other than the Chiff & Fipple Poststructural Pub in mind as she framed her definition. Every post has this quality, so referring to any one in particular seems unnecessary, though in defense of my thesis I believe I need to point to one of my own, from a thread I enjoyed very much (that actually did have a reference to Inuit, which is the language in italics below), but that could also apply to every transaction I’ve had on the board:
Humbly submitted this day, October 17, 2005.
:):):):):):)
