Please pardon my ignorance, but, what’s Poststructural, eh, Precious?
With best regards.
Stephen
In the time after structure ceased to be a requirement.
ah…emm is most poststructural!
oh, you could check on the main site for a definition
http://chiffandfipple.com/
g’luck with that…
Why is the main site definition written in Choctaw??? 
With best regards,
Stephen
If you have to ask, you’re not ready for the answer.
Also postructural - occurring after the ructure.
…always with the deconstruction. People are so analytical.
Fine. In that case, maybe “po structural.”
what!!
it isn’t like a pole building
where there isn’t any
bearing walls?
Here ya go!
post‐structuralism, a school of thought that emerged partly fromwithin French structuralism in the 1960s, reacting against structuralist pretensions to scientific objectivity and comprehensiveness. The term covers the philosophical deconstruction practised by Jacques Derrida and his followers, along with the later works of the critic Roland Barthes, the psychoanalytic theories of Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva, the historical critiques of Michel Foucault, and the cultural‐political writings of Jean‐François Lyotard and Gilles Deleuze. These thinkers emphasized the instability of meanings and of intellectual categories (including that of the human ‘subject’), and sought to undermine any theoretical system that claimed to have universal validity—such claims being denounced as ‘totalitarian’. They set out to dissolve the fixed binary oppositions of structuralist thought, including that between language and metalanguage—and thus between literature and criticism. Instead they favoured a non‐hierarchical plurality or ‘free play’ of meanings, stressing the indeterminacy of texts. Although waning in French intellectual life by the end of the 1970s, post‐structuralism’s delayed influence upon literary and cultural theory in the English‐speaking world has persisted. For a fuller account, consult Madan Sarup, An Introductory Guide to Post‐Structuralism and Postmodernism (1988).
In other words, here in the Pub you’re allowed to think that tin whistles can play jazz, and saxophones can play ITM. If you want to that is. I’m not saying you have to.
And here I thought it meant eating donut holes, instead of the toroidal portion.
Reading between the lines, that’s pretty much what it amounts to.
It’s one of those modern expressions that’s employed mainly to make the user sound cleverer than they really are. Others such are “postmodern,” “paradigm shift,” “existentialist” and “perfect storm.” Using terms like these has the effect of leaving only the in-crowd clear as to what you mean. It’s the linguistic equivalent of deliberately pitching your session in E flat in order to keep out all those who have turned up with D/G boxes and those with flutes, whistles and harmonicas only in D. The attempt at exclusivity can, of course, have unintended consequences. In the session, for example, you will exclude good musicians but the bodhran player, the biggest eejit in the pub, nay, village, remains cheerfully immune. Similarly, linguistically-speaking, the use of deliberately obscure terms will put off some thoughtful people but will give succour to the vacuous of mind and the serial bullsh1tters. I hasten to add that I do appreciate the humour intended in the forum title. “Poststructural’s” best claim to distinction is that it contains a run of five consonants. As for Jim’s contribution, I’m tempted to say that I did try to get it all but I ended up understanding Foucault.
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: poststructuralism
…it held that language is not a transparent medium that connects one directly with a “truth” or “reality” outside it, but rather a structure or code, whose parts derive their meaning from their contrast with one another and not from any connection with an outside world. …
In other words: its music
or mathematics.
The good thing about fads that flow from intellectual posturing
is that they don’t last long. You can’t demonstrate your superior virtue
by saying what everyone else has said for the last decade.
Poststructuralism was dying by the late 70s. It survives largely
as a joke on chiffandfipple.
I’m more a Prestructuralist.
I’m an unreconstructed destructuralist. I am, however, a keen student of the structure of posts.
structured posts, eh?
seems longer than mine