Poststructuralism and information studies

Poststructuralism The meaning of the term “poststructuralism” is not without controversy. Culler (1982) has pointed to some of these problems, notably how different theorists have attempted to distinguish “structuralism” from “poststructuralism” using different criteria. Chalmers (1999, p. 1111) states that “structuralism focused on a notion of a shared, commonly understood language that individuals would use as a basis for each utterance or action. This aspect of the theory was later criticized as unrealistic ... To take account of such issues, there was a move to ‘poststructuralist’ theories of knowledge and interpretation.” Framing the discussion in terms of literary analysis, Culler (1982, p. 22) writes, “In simplest terms, structuralists take linguistics as a model and attempt to develop ‘grammars’-systematic inventories of elements and their possibilities of combinations-that would account for the form and meaning of literary works; post-structuralists investigate the way in which this project is subverted by the workings of the texts themselves.” Another problem in making such a division between structuralism and poststructuralism is that late structuralists such as Roland Barthes (for example in S /Z [Barthes, 19741) adopted poststructuralist modes of analysis that subverted stronger structuralist claims. In information studies, the term “poststructuralism” is commonly associated with Michel Foucault’s work under the term, “discourse analysis.” In critical legal studies, poststructuralism was discussed in terms of Derridean deconstruction (see, for example, Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, 1990; and On the Necessity of Violence for Any Possibility of Justice, 1991). Farmer (1993), following critical legal studies, has broadly addressed poststructuralism in the legal research process and in information studies. Farmer (1993, p. 392) states that poststructuralism may be characterized by its rejection of “master narratives” and “foundational claims that purport to be based on science, objectivity, neutrality, and scholarly disinterestedness.” It