An attempt at a critique of post structuralism

Post Structuralism  

Latour has concerns about post structuralist arguments being used to cast doubt on the scientific evidence of global ecological crisis  (2004) and along with  Hicks (2009) considers the danger of  rhetorical warfare between groups if there is no basis for engaging in rational dialog. Where do we go when we have no empirical ground and no meta-narrative, what place is left for reason and dialog? How can post-structuralists claim to be confident in any of their critical judgements, are they not just judging our own perception of the text? do we abandon a generalised critical reason? What about holism, the excluded middle? With no legitimate means of establishing common ground, does this not  leave the local  "reason" to fall prey to a n instrumental rationality(Habermas),  and performativity (Lyotard)(1), due the influence of specialised  "expert interests" driven often by capital (ref) dominating the discourse via mystification/interpellation and the technique of specialised language games. The tendency towards  complexity of technical terminology and its potential for exploitation of the post structural positions by expert groups interested in mystification, has been addressed by the Sokal-debate (Ongstad). Does this not lead to a reduction of ethics to competitive cleverness, serving unquestioned self interest? Are we left with an ideology that claims to not be an ideology? Doesn't it encourage Skepticism (Russell) as no ideals are allowed,  so  the motivation is to  just go along with current prejudice, already imposed grand narrative (Hicks), hence structures operate to retain themselves via reproduction.

While denying meta discourses, Lyotard non the less accepts the influence of  power and "performativity"  as dominant in the remaining "language games" Wittgenstein(ref). He defines Performativity   "The modern ideal of emancipation becomes the post-modern technological ideal of performativity, getting the best possible result: "the rule of performance that requires the endless optimisation of the cost/benefit ratio" ("Appendix " page 1; Political 25). For this idea Lyotard acknowledges his debt to Luhmann,  (1969)  ( ie  a drive for efficiency (c.f instrumental rationality (Habermas)). Driven by the meta discourse of Capital (just a language game?). Derrida's  encourages us to 'take up the spirit of Marx' while disposing of marxist dogma,  acknowledging the importance of the macro analysis of Marx: "let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.  Derrida (1994) 

If representative knowledge reflects contemporary  concerns and purposes and are therefore expressions of and a source of power, and "only the most powerful  are entitled to select viable knowledge "(Watt )  How do we identify these power groups without resorting to meta discourse? Rorty R (date), a pragmatist, offers an important perspective re  researchers utilising 'deconstructive method'  of Derrida, thinking  of him as providing new improved tools for unmasking books and authors - showing what is really going on behind a false front, I do not think that a critic of metaphysics (the great Binary oppositions of)  in the tradition of Neitche and Heidigger should be read in this way. For without the traditional concepts of metaphysics one cannot make sense of the appearance-reality distinction, and without that distinction one cannot make sense of the notion of "what is really going on' "(Rorty 98) From this perspective can we make any meaningful statements as post-structuralists?"

 Also, arguments against Universal values assume a horizon limiting us to ad hoc local  criticisms (Sarup pp144) however they base this on the  assumption of a 'subject identity'  centred in a local discourse that is closed and bounded...?  but it is also claiming a de-centered self,  is it de-centered from the local identity/discourse.

 There are questions about how the stable/dominant narratives are maintained. Is not the dominant narrative always generated by the metric/beuocracy? Layder has argued that his structuralist roots led him to deny any  identifiable power sources, and also to identify potentially liberating forces of agency until late in his life when he wrote on "the care of the self".

From a scientific/ecology perspective, this  flat plane of closed  "discrete discourses" which neatly fits our digital storage systems but misses the holonic self-similar nature of our natural reality. Does a post-structural perspective imply we  abandon 'faith' in scientific models potentially essential to our survival? To place this in context, since the 1970's the  "empirical evidence"  has pointed to the fact that our economic system,  driven by a narrow divisive competitive instrumental rationality is well on the way to destroying its own ecological life support system... as it is driven by a limited form of rationality, assuming this is the case those with a more encompassing/sane view have to respond  with some form of  rationality if they going  to be taken into account... whether it is and expanded form of rationality as advocated by Derrida or a communicative rationality, as advocated  by Habermas.

Some authors argue that post-structuralism's modesty suggests we should doubt our theories and knowledge,  but also doubt our doubt (ref),  in the context of addressing the above criticisms is essential. If this is post-structuralisms position then many of the previous criticisms, in assuming an absolute relativist stance are using a straw man argument. 

Also on a practical level (of being in the world) it could be argued that  the idea, although they potentially true, that everyone can read a text in any way they want  is ridiculous, that is to assume we are all "enlightened" and without compassion? (Hicks). From the transformative perspective, individually focussed constructivist approaches(ref), in suggesting we are all equally free agents, can be seen as be forms of  ideological control themselves. 

Derrida, who many argue initiated post-structuralism with his critique of Saussere.  in "What is Ideology"  Specters of Marx (1994)states his opinion that: "What costs humanity very dearly is doubtless to believe that one can have done in history with a general essence of Man, on the pretext that it represents only a Hauptgespenst, arch-ghost, but also -  to still believe, no doubt, in this capital ghost. To believe in as do the credulous or the dogmatic. Between the two beliefs, as always, the way remains narrow. "


http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/issues/v30/30n2.Latour.html