Main topic




This paper compares and critically examines the most important features of structuralism and post-structuralism as two extremely important theoretical orientations for understanding current social and political reality in genere. In this regard, the following theoretical premises/conceptualizations will be analyzed: structure, subject, identity, linguistic forms, rhetorical incoherences of the text and generative consequences of power, that is, contextualization of its historically given/inherited institutions and practices. In addition to trying to fill the evident void of understanding these two discourses at the level of the Serbian political space, paper also pleads for their intense projection/application in the interpretation of indigenous Serbian political reality. The paper treats poststructuralism both as a kind of intrinsic critique of structuralism and as “structuralism of structuralism”, a kind of, very freely speaking, “meta-structuralism”.

More or less, theoretical postulates underlying structuralism and post-structuralism, of which we distinguish anti-foundationalism and anti-essentialism, can be registered in various scientific disciplines: from sociology and ethnology, through the political science and law, to history or, even, theology. The internal thematic configuration of post-structuralism includes decentralization, anti-genesis/anti-origin and anti-totality, poststructuralism rejects categorization, positional static, and fixedness of any kind in favor of the kinetic and fluidity of different, vertical and horizontal, social statuses and identities. In doing so, the postmodern meta-narrative is perceived as a cultural manifestation/valence of the academically formulated meta-narrative of post-structuralism.

Poststructuralism doesn’t accept that society is constructed, homogenized and transformed through extremely powerful and influential institutions/traditions based on ahistorical, unison, one-dimensional or singular ideas/logic. In contrast, it is, like postmodernism, multiperspective, contextual and historical, focused on specific cultures, structures, social grammars and texts. Unlike structuralism, which is primarily intended to scientifically determine these universal social structures, post-structuralism is directed to repudiate them, to diminish our confidence in them. Finally, following what James Williams says, post-structuralism occupies an important place in what might be called “Neo-Enlightenment” (Williams 2005, 153–167). Poststructuralism has the potential to become a revitalizing energy needed to restore the creative and critical attributes of all aspects of social life in terms of realizing more than necessary changes. Ergo, its further study, popularization and application is one of the important tasks of the Serbian scientific community/scene.

keywords :


    • Althusser, L. and Е. Balibar. [1965] 1970. Reading Capital. London: New Left Books.
    • Althusser, Louis. 1976. Essays in Self-Criticism. London: New Left.
    • Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    • Barthes, Roland. 1977. “The Death of the Author”. In Image-Music-Text, ed. Stephen Heath, 142–149. London: Fontana Press.
    • Barthes, Roland. 1991. Mythologies. New York: The Noonday Press.
    • Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    • Baudrillard, Jean. 2002. Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Standford: Stanford University Press.
    • Bentham, Jeremy. [1787, 1791] 1991. The Panopticon Writings. London: Verso.
    • Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic J. D. Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Sociology in Question. London: Sage Publications.
    • Bourdieu, Pierre. 2013. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Choat, Simon. 2010. Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze. London: Continuum.
    • Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Margins of Philosophy. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
    • Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Writing and Difference. London: Routledge.
    • Dosse, Francois. 1997а. History of Structuralism: The Rising Sign, I945-I966. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Dosse, Francois. 1997b. History of Structuralism: The Sign Sets, 1967-Present. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Durkheim, Emile. 2013а. The Division of Labour in Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Durkheim, Emile. 2013b. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Foucault, Michel. 1977. “What Is an Author?”. In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, 113–139. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    • Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
    • Foucault, Michel. 1980. “The Confession of the Flesh”. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, ed. Colin Gordon, 194–229. New York: Pantheon.
    • Foucault, Michel. 2000a. “The Subject and Power”. In Power, ed. James D. Faubion, 326–349. New York: New Press.
    • Foucault, Michel. 2000b. “Space, Knowledge, and Power”. In Power, ed. James D. Faubion, 349–365. New York: New Press.
    • Foucault, Michel. 2009. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the College de France 1977-1978. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Giddens, Anthony. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Grosz, Barbara J. and Candace L. Sidner. 1986. “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse”. Computational Linguistics 12 (3): 175‒204.
    • Han, Sam. 2014. “Structuralism and post-structuralism”. In Routledge Handbook of Social and Cultural Theory, ed. Anthony Elliott, 39–56. London: Routledge.
    • Koljević, Bogdana. 2010. Biopolitika i politički subjektivitet. Beograd: Službeni glasnik.
    • Koljević, Bogdana. 2018. Demokratija savremenog francuskog poststrukturalizma. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.
    • Kristeva, Julia. 1980. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
    • Lacan, Jacques. 2001. Écrits: A selection. London: Routledge.
    • Leatherman, Janie. 2008. “Challenges to Authority in Global Politics”. In Discipline and Punishment in Global Politics: Illusions of Control, ed. Janie Leatherman, 1–27. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Lemert, Charles. 2005. Postmodernism Is Not What You Think: Why Globalization Threatens Modernity. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
    • Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
    • Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1995. “The structural study of myth”. New Studies in Aesthetics 26: 85–96.
    • Lundy, Craig. 2013. “From Structuralism to Poststructuralism”. In The Edinburgh Companion to Poststructuralism, ed. Benoît Dillet, Iain MacKenzie and Robert Porter, 69–95. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    • Marks, Karl. 1978. Kapital. Beograd: Prosveta.
    • Norris, Christopher. 1987. Derida. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    • Pfohl, Stephen 1990. “Welcome to the Parasite Café: postmodernity as a social problem”. Social Problems 37(4): 421–442.
    • Pfohl, Stephen 1992. Death at the Parasite Café: Social Science (Fictions) and the Postmodern, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Poster, Mark. 2007. The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    • Rorty, Richard. 1992. The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Sarup, Madan. 1993. An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Postmodernism. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    • Saussure, Ferdinand de. 2011. Course in General Linguistics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    • Singh, Ishtla. 2004. “Language, Тhought and Representation”. In Language, Society and Power: An Introduction, ed. Ishtla Singh and Jean Stilwell Peccei, 17–35. London: Routledge.
    • Stojanović, Đorđe. 2013. „Traktat o postmodernizmu, društvu i politici: Quaecumque ab X dicta essent, commentitia esse.” Srpska politička misao 41 (3): 11–56.
    • Stojanović, Đorđe. 2016. „Postmodernizam u društvenim naukama: stanje paradigme.” U „Postmodernizacija srpske nauke: politika postmoderne/politika posle postmoderne”, ur. Đorđe Stojanović i Miško Šuvaković, posebno izdanje, Srpska politička misao,  5–35.  doi: 10.22182/spm.specijal2016.1.
    • Thiele, Leslie Paul. 2002. Thinking Politics. Perspectives in Ancient, Modern, and Postmodern Political Theory. New York: Seven Bridges Press.
    • Williams, James. 2005. Understanding poststructuralism. Chesham: Acumen.
PERIODICS Serbian Political Thought 1/2020 1/2020 УДК 165.75:321.01 37-60