Page 144 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction

CULT_C06.qxd 10/24/08 17:20 Page 128

128 Chapter 6 Structuralism and post-structuralism

he does not wish to say’ (229). It is in the unravelling of this contradiction that the binary
oppositions speech/writing, nature/culture are deconstructed – the privileged term in
the opposition is shown to be dependent on the other for its meaning.
We noted in Chapter 1 how high culture has often depended on popular culture to
give it definitional solidity. Derrida’s critique of Rousseau alerts us to the way in which
one side in such couplets is always privileged over the other; one side always claims a
position of status (of pure presence) over the other. Derrida also demonstrates that
they are not pure opposites – each is motivated by the other, ultimately dependent on
the absent other for its own presence and meaning. There is no naturally ‘good’ girl
who stays on at school, which can be opposed to a naturally ‘bad’ girl who wants
to leave at 16. Simply to reverse the binary opposition would be to keep in place the
assumptions already constructed by the opposition. We must do more than ‘simply . . .
neutralise the binary oppositions. . . . One of the two terms controls the other . . .
holds the superior position. To deconstruct the opposition [we must] ...overthrow
the hierarchy’ (1978b: 41). Instead of accepting the double bluff, a ‘deconstructive’
reading would wish to dismantle the couplet to demonstrate that it can only be held
in place by a certain ‘violence’ – a certain set of dubious assumptions about gender and
sexuality. A deconstructive reading could also be made of Dances with Wolves: instead
of the film being seen to invert the binary oppositions and narrative functions of
Wright’s model, we might perhaps consider the way the film challenges the hierarchy
implicit in the model. As Derrida (1976) points out:

[A deconstructive] reading must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived
by the writer, between what he commands and what he does not command of the
patterns of language that he uses. This relationship is ...a signifying structure that
critical [i.e. deconstructive] reading should produce. . . . [That is, a] production
[which] attempts to make the not seen accessible to sight (158, 163).

Discourse and power: Michel Foucault

One of the primary concerns of Michel Foucault is the relationship between knowledge
and power and how this relationship operates within discourses and discursive forma-
tions. Foucault’s concept of discourse is similar to Althusser’s idea of the ‘problematic’;
that is, both are organized and organizing bodies of knowledge, with rules and regula-
tions which govern particular practices (ways of thinking and acting).
Discourses work in three ways: they enable, they constrain, and they constitute. As
Foucault (1989) explains, discourses are ‘practices that systematically form the objects
of which they speak’ (49). Language, for example, is a discourse: it enables me to speak,
it constrains what I can say, it constitutes me as a speaking subject (i.e. it situates and pro-
duces my subjectivity: I know myself in language; I think in language; I talk to myself
in language). Academic disciplines are also discourses: like languages, they enable,