14 Poststructuralism and Cultural Studies

Ms. Akhila Narayan

INTRODUCTION

Poststructuralism can be understood broadly as a set of theoretical propositions or a philosophical outlook that emerged in France in the late 1960s and challenged the established traditions of thought in the West. It bears a skeptical attitude and staunch distrust towards anything ‘fixed’ or ‘definite’ and strives to subvert it. Poststructuralism is philosophically reflexive as it constantly subjects its own assumptions and interpretative practices to scrutiny and resists any attempt towards reductionism into a single formula or method. Its radical propositions on language, history, science and knowledge have reoriented disciplines like philosophy, linguistics, literature, arts and social sciences. Theoretical approaches like Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, postcolonialism etc. have contributed to and in turn borrowed heavily from poststructuralist thought. Though the immediate context of poststructuralism can be traced to Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure’s sign theory of language, which it shares with structuralism; its philosophical rigour comes from continental philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and his critique of Enlightenment, Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, and Sigmund Freud. Poststructuralism is instrumental in establishing the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies as it broadened the definition of such terms as language, text and culture and diffused the hierarchies between high and low culture. Its immediate effect has been the inclusion of texts like television, sops, rock music, films etc. into the fold of cultural studies.

The term poststructuralism is Janus faced as it at once suggests a departure from structuralism and continuation of the same. Most of its premises issue from structuralism, retains the latter’s anti-humanist stance and its view of reality being inscribed in language. However it raps structuralism for falling short of exploring the full potential of its findings. Poststructuralism blames structralists for falling prey to the same pseudo-scientific tendencies of western metaphysics reducing everything to a structural framework. Poststructuralism, thus one could say, is a reworking structuralism taking the latter’s findings to its proper conclusion.

Having said that, poststructuralism is not a monolithic school or movement; its character and texture is highly polysemic as it draws from several disciplines like philosophy, linguistics, psychoanalysis etc. Some of the prominent thinkers, who have shaped poststructuralist thought, are Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Giles Deleuz and Felix Guattari. Though each of them has developed d istinct theoretical strands of poststructuralism there are certain commonly shared assumptions among them.

SECTION I- KEY ASSUMPTIONS

1. Rejects essentialist, totalizing, foundationalist concepts:-

Poststructuralism is skeptical of essentialist, totalizing or foundationalist theories that positions, explains or stabilizes all other discourses.

• Totalizing refers to theories that purport to exp lain or justify all phenomena or practices. For instance Marxism believes that emancipation of human society can come about only through revolutions. In postmodern lingo they are known as metanatrratives.
• Essentialism is a doctrine that ascribes a fixed or essential property to people or phenomenon that is deemed universal. Thus essentialists would argue that there is such a thing as ‘reality,’ ‘truth,’ ‘beauty,’ and ‘feminine’ by default.
• Foundationalism rests on the certainty that there is a centre or origin that exists outside the play of language that acts as a foundation for all forms of thought. It controls and governs all forms of knowledge and meaning and lends structure to them. Logocenticism, phonocenticism, phallagocenrtcism etc. represent different facets of this view. Derrida gave them an alternate term known as ‘transcendental signifieds’ (refer to the section on Deconstruction).

Western philosophy and thought is grounded on the assumption that there is a centre, origin or essence outside of language that escapes the play of language. Poststructuralism proceeds to break down this myth by claiming that our world is linguistically determined. And since language itself as a system is unstable (a point explained under Deconstruction) all that it constitutes should be subject to slippage and instability.

2. Foregrounds Theory:

Poststructuralism disputes ‘common sense’ and calls into question concepts and categories that are considered as natural or taken for granted. It challenges received ideas and forces us to rethink and reexamine naturalized social arrangements, institutions and habitual thought processes of society. Since this is by and large a speculative practice, poststructuralism underscores the primacy of theory wherein it is imperative to ‘theorize’ one’s position and practice. To theorize is to state the general conditions of signification that determine meaning and interpretation in all fields of human action and deliberations. This explains the self-reflexive nature of poststructuralist enterprise.

3. Decentered Subject:

Poststructuralism rejects the humanistic view of individual as autonomous being endowed with coherent, purposive and deterministic self. Such a view upholds that the individual self or the author is the centre or origin of all knowled ge, meanings and values. Human self acts as the organizing principle or the agent that controls the form and meaning of the text. Poststructuralism contests this view and replaces the concept of individual with that of the constructed ‘subject’– who is a product of social, cultural, political, economic, and psychosexual forces that broadly make up one’s context at a given point in time. Human selves are no longer thus deemed as essential, transcendental or universally constant but subject to socio-cultural discourses and is constantly in the making. The subject is thus always ‘in process’ (Kristeva). Since it questions the humanistic concept of self and identity, poststructuralism is considered as anti- humanistic.

4. Constructedness of Knowledge and Reality:

Poststructuralism rejects the possibility of an objective reality or truth and see them as social constructs. Reality is always shaped in/ by discourse(s), both the way we perceive it and the reality that is perceived. The kinds of ideology or discourse that we have internalized or are surrounded by determine how we perceive the world around us. For instance the perception of the blacks as an inferior race in relation to the whites was validated, and sanctioned as truth within colonial discourse. Poststructuralism argues that it is impossible to comprehend anything in totality; reality is multiple, partial and textual (as it’s mediated through language). By the same logic, knowledge and its production happen not in a neutral environment but in a discursive one, under the influence of several conditional factors. Such a view takes away the possibility of secure knowledge and instead leaves us a world where ‘there are no facts, only interpretations.’

SECTION II- KEY FOCI

1. Deconstruction

Deconstruction, often described as ‘applied poststructuralism’ is associated with the works of French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Derrida in 1966 presented a paper titled ‘Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences’ at John Hopkins University, USA, wherein he exposed the theoretical limitations of structuralism and critiqued the notion of structurality. To many it was an ‘event’ that displaced structuralism and ushered in the era of poststructuralism.

Derrida builds his theory of deconstruction on the premises laid down by Saussure in his theory of signs. Saussure defines language as a system of signs where each sign consists of two parts namely, the signifier (word) and the signified (concept/object). The immediate relation between the signifier and the signified, Saussure says, is arbitrary and it is established through repetition and conventions. This means to say that the form and meaning of the signifier is not dictated by outside reality (for if that were the case we would have just one word to refer to one object and hence only one language) but emerges from its difference from other signifiers. Thus the word ‘tree’ has no implicit connection with the actual entity in nature. We associate the word ‘tree’ with the concept of tree through repeated use of the word to refer to the same. Given this, Saussure goes on to say, what gives the word its form and meaning is its relation with and difference from other words like ‘plant,’ ‘shrub,’ ‘grass,’ ‘bush’ etc. The stated propositions on the relation between signifier and signified proved quite revolutionary as it undermined the earlier notion of language as a ‘transparent medium’ that reflects reality as it is. But the more profound implication of Saussure’s theory was the realization that language is not derived from reality but exists as a live system that is independent of outside reality and that our only access to reality is through the medium of language. Our world in other words is constituted in language. Furthermore, meaning is made possible because we share this system and its conventions. So for instance, one can understand an utterance (what Saussure refers to as the parole) in say Bengali only if one shares or has internalized the structural conventions of Bengali language (langue). His sign theory had profound implications for structuralism as it transposed this model to the study of cultural systems and practices. Anthropologist Claude Levi Strauss and the field of semiotics demonstrated how customs, rituals, myths, fashion, food habits etc. function like a language in that they make sense to us because they are shared and are based on difference.

One of the major pitfalls of Saussure’s findings was that despite having pointed out the apparent absence of any inherent connection between signifier and signified, he overlooked the consequences of this gap between the two. He asserted that the sign still acts as a stable entity as reference to a signifier immediately would bring to mind the corresponding signified, a relation ‘always already’ established.. Thus language as a signification system still functions in a stable manner. Derrida addresses this lacuna in Saussure’s conclusions and argues that the signifier does not directly refer to the signified but instead only leads you to other signifiers in the system, in an endless process. Further he claims that Saussure in his attempt to lend stability to language and meaning, succumbs to the pitfalls of western foundationalism.

A sign under deconstruction is no longer a stable, self-sufficient, self-contained entity but something that perpetually proliferates the chain of signification. According to Derrida, a signifier does not directly refer to the signified but instead refers to other signifiers in the system. So for instance if one were to explain the word ‘cat’ as a ‘a small domesticated carnivorous mammal,’ it refers by association to another set of signifiers (‘small,’ ‘domesticated,’ ‘carnivorous, etc.) each of which when defined can in turn lead you to a new set of signifiers and so on. Please note that the so called signifieds of the word ‘cat’ act as signifiers in themselves which can have a different set of signifieds and so on. The meaning of the word ‘cat’ therefore, lies somewhere along this chain of signification never to be realized fully. The meaning of ‘cat’ does not rest within the word itself but constantly spills into successive signifiers in such a way that it perpetually leaves traces i.e. every signifier is contaminated or influenced by other signifiers that precedes it or follows it in an endless process. Thus the word ‘cat’ contains traces of all the other words present in its chain of signification and theoretically of all the words in the language system. Derrida plays on the idea that meaning not only lies in the difference but is also deferred endlessly. It is indefinitely postponed. He coined the neologism ‘différance’ which is a combination of ‘to differ’ and ‘to defer,’ to explain this phenomenon. Thus the process of meaning making goes on endlessly. The more serious implication of this observation is that meaning of utterances is no longer fully under our control or originates in us, as language is a pre-existing system that perpetuates itself. Meaning, Derrida says, is only a temporary halt in the endless play of signifier to signifier. For instance if one were to say ‘I have no words’, it could express different things depending on who says it in what context. It could be an opening line of someone who has won an award, or an expression of shock after receiving a setback in life or it may even be an opening line of a poem or novel. But the context in itself cannot fully control the meaning of the expression as it may carry traces of meaning from other contexts. This can also be under stood at the level of texts, where each text alludes to several other texts. Julia Kristeva terms this phenomenon as intertextuality. Thus for instance, ‘The Bad Girl’ meme (Fig 2) satirizing the rape discourse in India, which became a rage on the online media in the recent past invokes an earlier text ‘The Ideal Boy’ (Fig 1) that it models itself on. The meme further alludes to the discourse around rape that recently erupted in India and the ludicrous response of the Indian political establishment to it. So here a single text is alluding to and responding to several other texts/ discourses and is therefore intertextual in nature.

We use language by subjecting ourselves to its manipulation and endless play. Drawing upon Saussure’s observation that our reality is constituted in language–a signifying system, as proven by Derrida–that is highly slippery, that does not have a centre or origin, we thus enter a decentered universe where all we have is an endless play of signifiers without constants. Reality in other words is textual and there is ‘no thing outside the text.’

Derrida’s concept of différance subverts the basic assumption of western philosophy which Derrida terms as Logocentricism. It refers to the desire for centre or presence in western thought which acts as a causal principle from which everything else emanate. In western thought there are several alternative terms for this centre: essence, being, truth, form, beginning, consciousness, God, man, white, etc. He refers to them as ‘transcendental signifieds’– concepts invested with absolute authority which places them beyond questioning or examination. Structuralism also presupposes a centre, that acts as a structuring principle of a given language system by stabilizing the meaning yet somehow itself escapes the structurality. The centre thus governs the structure, yet itself escapes structuration. This could be clarified with a simple instance. When Derrida speaks about the slippery nature of language he is conscious of the fact that his own utterance (about that language) and therefore it’s meaning is subject to instability and (mis)interpretations.

One of the stated agendas of deconstruction is to break down the binary structures that underlie western thought. According to Derrida the presence of a centre automatically creates a hierarchical structure, an order. Thus if there is light there is darkness, if there is good there is evil. Derrida argues that the western metaphysics has been built around systems of opposition (binaries) like speech vs. writing, presence vs. absence, white vs. black, man vs. woman, good vs. bad, culture vs. nature, etc. where the former is privileged over the latter. Derrida especially looks at the privileging of speech over writing in what he terms as phonocentricism. He claims that these binaries are not neutral but produce violent hierarchies where one term dominates the other and occupies a commanding position. This is not a natural state of being but produced in the relationship that is constructed. One of the stated aims of deconstruction is to diffuse these binary structures, not by shifting the centre because that would only give rise to a new centre, but by shaking the vey grounds on which they are built. Derrida deconstructs these oppositions by demonstrating that the nature of their relationship is more of complicity than oppositional. For instance white defines itself against the black. White becomes meaningful only in relation to the black and vice-versa. Thus the existence or meaning of white is dependent on the presence of black. In other words, black which is often under privileged becomes the necessary condition for the existence of white. The meaning or presence of one is motivated by its relation with and difference from the absent other. To put it differently white contains the traces of black within it and vice versa. By suggesting that binary terms are mutually dependent on each other, Derrida decentres the privileged terms suggesting that both are mutually dependent and inherently neutral. The presence of centre or hierarchy is merely an illusion, a momentary stop in the differential play of signifiers. Thus by bringing in the endless undecidability into play Derrida destabilizes the oppositional categories and reveals to us their arbitrarily constructed nature.

2. Power, Knowledge and Discourse:

Deconstruction is subversive in approach as it aims to undermine any system that rests on the assumption that order or unity is possible and that meaning is fixed. It instead envisages a decentered universe where there are no guaranteed facts, only interpretations, none of which carries a stamp of authority thereby creating an endless free play of meaning. Its political slant becomes evident in its attempt to reveal the hidden binaries within texts, exposing the constructed nature of these hierarchies, thereby rendering them theoretically ineffective. However its interrogation of power and its workings are largely ‘textual’ as it reduces ideology, social and political control to the level of mere signifying processes. It does not in other words explore the real effects of power.

This anomaly was addressed by another key strand of poststructuralism that originates in the works of French historian Michel Foucault (1926-1984) who concerned himself with the study of trappings of power. Foucault, for his examples, looked to the past, precisely Enlightenment period of 18th and 19th c. and studied institutions like hospitals, mental asylums, prisons, sexual technologies, etc. to shed broader light on the procedures by which societies regulate themselves in an orderly and rational manner. The study revealed the manner in which power operates in an inconspicuous yet pervasive fashion within the seemingly objective vocabulary of new sciences that emerged during the period. He found these systems to be socially repressive as it gave rise to a society of surveillance where individuals willingly subject themselves to social control.

One of the primary concerns in Foucault is the relation between knowledge and power and the manner in which it operates within discourse. His notion of power goes against the conventional ‘juridico-discursive’ model that is directly restrictive and repressive. Instead power is seen as pervasive and operates in partial concealment. Its source is not an individual or a single structure but multiple discursive formations. Discursive formation or discursive practices are terms introduced by Foucault to explain the manner by which truth/ reality within a given historical moment is established by way of institutions and set of rules. Power, he says, operates ‘not by rights but by technique, not by law but by normalization, not by punishment but by control.’ It exists at the level of everyday practice and exchange between subjects.

According to Foucault, power/knowledge and discourse/power are mutually reflexive around which culture and social structures are constituted. Power and knowledge work in sync with the each other as one thrives off the other. They both together give rise to discourse and discursive formations. Knowledge, for Foucault is not the basic facts but theories, concepts, beliefs, findings etc. that are validated by existing power structures as truths. But power in turn is derived from claims to knowledge and expertise. Such cluster of claims together gives rise to what is known as discourse. For instance prior to independence, casteism was the accepted discourse of social organization in India, as written down and decreed by God and rishis in the ancient Indian scriptures. This was largely imposed by the upper castes, namely the Brahmins, who wielded this power by virtue of their being able to read the sacred texts in Sanskrit (knowledge). Put simply, discourse is truth that is in circulation in society. Since they are validated by power structures or authorities (church, man, whites, state, etc.) they are essentially value laden. The truths thus in circulation are not factual or complete as they are muffled by value systems. Discourse produces the truth that we live by and these truths are contingent by nature as they have to be qualified, repeated and kept alive through circulation. Thus what Foucault terms as ‘regimes of truth’ do not necessarily have to be true they have only to be thought as true or acted upon as truth. This further implies that discourses are never constant but keep changing over time. However one can never escape discourse. Individuals are socialized through these discursive formations. They create subject positions which individuals unwittingly occupy and live by. We experience life in discourses and our ‘selves’ are shaped by the internalization of multiplicity of discourses.

Foucault’s theory of discourse problematized the western notion of individual subject as the centre/origin of knowledge or meaning. Like language, discourse operates independent of any individual intentions; it is ‘always already’ there and is self- perpetuating. Individuals are part of discourse in so far as they respond to correspond with the conventional discursive formations in their language. Individual speakers thus no longer determines the expression or constitution of their identities effected through speaking, as discourse deprives them of any alleged status as the ‘source’ or ‘master’ of meaning. Discourse thus displaces or decenters the individual speaker or subject as the originator, instead reduces the subject as a ‘variable or complex function of discourse.’ Discourse accords individuals certain subject positions which mediate their perception of and behavior in the world.

3. Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalytical approach originates in the works of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who floated the notion of the unconscious. In fact psychoanalysis heralds the rise of Theory as it’s one of the earliest schools to challenge the western metaphysics by drawing upon the human unconscious which threatened the notion of a unified, accessible self.

Jacques Lacan (1901-198) who came after Freud is of much interest to poststructuralism, especially his revised theory of Freud’s psychosexual development. Lacan was influenced by the structuralist school especially the works of Levis Strauss, Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Jakobson. His interest in the concept of human ‘subject’ whom he alternatively refers to as the ‘speaking subject’ has placed him within the poststructuralist fold. Further his study explains the nature of power and as to why we are so susceptible to it.

Lacan claims that the human subjectivity is wholly constructed by its interaction with the external world during the early stages of child’s development. Unlike Freud who saw the unconscious as an aberration, Lacan considers it as the centre of our being. Moreover he considers language itself as providing the key to explain the construction of the human subject. This is evidenced from his famous statement that the ‘unconscious is structured like language.’

Lacan’s model of psychosexual development differs from that of Freud in that while the latter is rather fixed and determinate, Lacan conceives a relational model that is based on difference and it is in this that it falls into the poststructuralist framework. Lacan identifies three crucial stages in the development of individual as a child to that of an adult. Of this the transition from infancy to childhood is considered the most crucial one. Lacan says that the infant during its early phase (what in Freud is referred to as the pre- Oedipal state) lives in the world of Imaginary. This stage is characterized by the absence of speech and dominance of impressions and fantasies, drives and desires with no sense of boundaries. During this stage the infant does not see itself as separate from the world and lives in a state of wholeness and bliss.

The next stage is the Mirror stage during which the child comes to realize that he/she is separate from the world. During this phase the child is confronted with the image of itself that society gives back to it. As this is never a true or complete version it leads to a sort of ‘misrecognition,’ which nevertheless forms the basis of our identity. The child moves from the Imaginary to the Symbolic via the Mirror stage.

The third stage is the Symbolic during which the child enters the world of language and the Real– this refers to the world which is outside language, never fully available to us– is represented by way of language, ideology and discursive structures. During this phase the child internalizes language and other socio-cultural systems that prevail around the child. As a result of leaving the state of wholeness, the child here experiences a sense of loss. This is also due to the suppression of desires and drives as it gets initiated into the social world of restrictions and prohibitions. This lack turns to a desire for fulfillment which might be satisfied for a time being by symbolic substitutes (Lacan attributes our attraction to ideology to this desire for completion) but is never fully attained. Like Derrida refers to the constant deferment of meaning, the sense of wholeness is constantly postponed. As we enter the larger social order, our repressed desires and emotions gets tapped in the unconscious, which later percolates into art, literature and other cultural expressions.

During the Symbolic phase the child is subject to the Order which Lacan associates with the father figure and terms as the phallus (in a symbolic sense) that signifies the centre, the patriarchal power. This privileging of the masculine in we stern metaphysics is what poststructuralists’ and feminists refer to as phallagocentricism. That is the privileging of the masculine in the construction of meaning. Under this the male is regarded as the natural source of power and authority.

According to Lacan we construct our subjectivity based on our relation with and difference from others (Mirror stage). Our subjecthood is determined by how others perceive us. We also become subjects unde r the ‘gaze’ of the ‘Other’ (larger social order), what in Foucauldian term we understand as the cluster of multifarious discourses which constitute our ‘reality.’ Our subjectivity is inscribed within this existing order. The identity thus is framed in relation to and in difference from others, a point echoed by structuralists’ and later Derrida with regard to language. This view strikes at the very roots of liberal humanist view of individual as coherent, autonomous being as it shows that identity is constituted externally within structures we happen to find ourselves in. And since no structure or discourse is constant our identities are also subject to change. Lacan describes ‘subject as a process’ that never attains completion. And since we subject ourselves to the realm of language as we move from Imaginary to Symbolic realm, it could be argued that our identity too is a linguistic construct. However this language is not our own but a system which is ‘always already’ there.

Lacan’s model of psychosexual development has had profound implication in cultural studies as it gives us insight into the operation of ideology and the concept of ‘gaze.’

4. Dialogicity and Heteroglossia

Though Mikhail Bhaktin’s (1895-1975) name is not directly linked with poststructuralism (as he wrote mostly during the first half of the twentieth century, loosely associated with the Russian formalist school), his works were delivered from obscurity with the rise of poststructuralist movement in the latter half of the century. His theory of language has been extremely influential in Western Europe especially the concept of dialogicity and heteroglossia. He is noted for his strong critique of Saussurean linguistics and structuralism, countering it with his dialogic view language. Bhaktin’s theory is a blend of formalist, Marxist and post structuralist tendencies.

Writing shortly after Saussure, Bhaktin developed a pragmatic theory (relating language use and language user in a situational context) of language that posed a direct challenge to Saussure’s theory of sign systems. Bhaktin was unable to accept linguists, including Saussure, who treated language as an ahistorical (synchronic) abstract unitary system. According to Bhaktin language is a socially constructed sign system that has real material existence. Language is social phenomenon, inseparable from context. It’s inseparable from ideology as ideology operates in language. A ‘word’ for Bhaktin is an active, dynamic social sign that is capable of taking different meanings and connotations for different social classes, in different historical situation (Valentin Voloshinov). A word, in Bhaktin, is equivalent to a discourse or utterance. No utterance can exist in isolation, as a monologic speech divorced from its social context, without generating active response. A word or language itself is a site for ideological and class struggles where those in power always try to control the meaning of utterances.

Bhaktin explains the social character of language based on the concepts of heteroglossia and dialogicity. He introduces the term heteroglossia in his essay ‘Discourse of Novel.’

The term heteroglossia comes from, hetero meaning ‘different’ and Greek glōssa meaning ‘tongue’ or ‘language.’ According to this, language behaves like a ‘heteroglot’- a criss-srossing and an expression of a multiplicity of discrete social, ideological occupational groups and individuals, past and present, all co-existing as speakers of language. In the literal sense it refers to existence of different speech varieties within a language like social dialects, professional jargons, languages of generations, class, sex and age group, language of authority, and so on each of which comes with its own vocabulary. Thus a single language can be stratified into several ‘other languages.’

Unlike Saussure who claimed that meaning of words emerges in its difference from other words in the abstract system, Bhaktin considered language and meaning as operating within a context where they are susceptible to constant modification and contestation.

Words and their meanings are perpetually subject to change and qualification as it moves across social classes, groups and individuals. They are imbued and charged with ideology, intentions, emotions, tendencies of a particular group, age, class, work etc.

This brings us to the other concept floated by Bhaktin– dialogic or dialogicity as a counter to a monologic (single voice discourse). The term literally means ‘dialogue’ or ‘speaking across.’ According to this, language is a live system where every utterance is inherently ‘addressed’ to someone. Every act of speech is a response to what has been said before or anticipates what is to follow. In other words language is an instrument that partake contradictory ideologies, world views, beliefs and histories so that our utterances are never made in vacuum but in a dynamic, politically charged environment. His study focused on the novels of Dostoyevsky which he argued acts as a microcosm of social life where every character belonging to different gender, class, age or social group are allowed to speak without being reduced to a single viewpoint of the author like in the novels of Tolstoy.

Case Study

A Foucauldian Reading of Indian Book Deport Charts with Special Reference to ‘An Ideal Boy’

The shifting and contested relation of power, knowledge and the human body has been the crucial concern in Foucault. His explorations are historically situated as he is concerned with the manner in which discourse generates and validates social arrangements a nd practices. Power needs a body, an object or a surface to act on. Discipline is a modality of power that has been extensively used in modern times to create ‘docile bodies’. According to Foucault one of the aims and effects of discipline around prison, military establishments and schools have been to create such docile bodies that can be subjected, used, manipulated, or improved upon. More compliant the bodies, easier it is to engineer them and shape them into conduits of power, who will then become part of its network and get assimilated into the dominant discourse. Discipline is a mode of power that does not emerge in vacuum but is necessitated by a network of discourses. It may be taken up by specialized institutions (rehabilitation centers), or by institutions that use it for a particular end (schools, hospitals) and so on. But the more crucial fact is that discipline is an instrument of socialization which involves long term processes of inheriting, interpreting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies. It’s a means of internal social control wherein individuals internalize a set of values, beliefs or moral codes that induce conformity thereby limiting acts of deviancy.

Discipline does not always entail strict enforcement of rules or punishment; it can also be instituted indirectly and subtly through narratives. This is most visible in educational institutions where children, both in terms of body and mind, are systematically ‘tamed’ by inducing a sense of morality and creating a black and white d istinction between right and wrong/ good and bad. One can see this at work in the Indian context in the unassuming charts brought out by the Indian Book Depot. Brought under various titles like ‘The Ideal Boy’, ‘Bad Habits’, ‘Children of India’, ‘Women at Work’ and so on these were quite popular in the Indian school classrooms and textbooks during the 80s and 90s. One of the popular charts created an icon of ‘Adarsh Balak’ or ‘The Ideal Boy’ (Fig 1) who is always seen in plain shirt, shorts and socks with neatly combed hair and do things that are supposed to be good and acceptable. He appeared in the school textbooks and educational charts and served as a guide to morality and correct social behavior. Adarsh Balak was the image of moral righteousness and perfection who embodied a code of conduct that was sanctioned by the Social Order which comprised the parents, teachers, school, the State and society in general. They served the purpose of what Foucault described as normalization of behavior as they constructed idealized forms of conduct. For example, the chart on Ideal Boy shows the habits or behavior of a good body like brushing, teeth, touching parent’s feet, praying and interestingly joining NCC etc. According to Foucault normalization was one of the effective means of social control in which subjects were complicit. In the Ideal Boy you see a refined, calm, sober child who systematically goes about his routine life without creating any disturbance to his surroundings. What makes him ideal or adarsh which literally means ‘role model’ is the code of behavior he practices in routine life which thus gets adjudged as normal. Each of the box construct the notion of what is perfect or expected from a boy in Indian society. But these charts also carry an ideological subtext and state propaganda. For instance the one saying that joining NCC (National Cadet Cops) is a sign of an ideal boy shows an image of the boy who resembles a soldier holding a rifle. This image carries the message of one’s duty towards serving the nation. The art though described as naïve and kitsch, constructed an image of an unruffled, domesticated, and subdued boy who would make up the ideal state subject. He does not raise a voice or ask questions to his teachers or parents but is unconditionally obedient. He does not breach the hierarchy and is always respectful towards others.

Audio/ Visual Quadrant Fig 1

Fig 2

Glossary

Metanarratives: Alternatively known as Grand or Master narratives, these are totalizing theories that explain or rationalize our experience, knowledge and existence to us. They stand for a larger purpose (telos) or goal that drives an individual, community, or nation. Emancipation of human subject in terms of reason is an instance of grand narrative which rationalized such practices as colonialism for centuries together in the West.

Linguistic Determinism: According to this view our world is constituted in language. It’s not the external world that determines the language but language that determines how we perceive the world. Reality is always mediated through language. If at all there is a reality outside of language that is never be accessible to us.

Phonocentricis m: The belief in the western culture that phonemic sounds (speech) can adequately represent ideas present in the consciousness of the speaker. It guarantees a presence and hence certainty of meaning. Writing is less privileged as it is considered as second-order mediation of self-present speech. Derrida, however, deconstructs this binary relation. Speech is privileged over writing as it guarantees presence and hence immediate access to meaning or intention. Writing becomes significant when presence is no longer guaranteed by the speech (utterance). It serves the purpose of retaining the presence. Think about the fact that we explain ourselves more, resort to descriptive style in writing than while speaking. Thus writing is always a considered as a supplement (which means it’s at once an addition and substitute to) to speech and hence secondary. However Derrida subverts this hierarchy by stating that even speech requires a supplement as it shares the very same characteristics of language that writing does. For instance we may have to qualify our statements to prevent misinterpretation (express ions like ‘I mean…,’ ‘What I meant was…’ etc. suggest this need to explain oneself) but even then once uttered words and their meanings are no longer under our control, hence the felt need to curtail it with supplements. Thus there is an endless need for supplements to produce the effect of the thing itself.

Reference:

• Belsey, Catherine. Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002. Print
• Berterns, Hans. Literary Theory: The Basics. New York: Routledge. 2008. Print.
• Gutting, Garry. Foucault: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Print.
• Homer, Sean. Jacques Lacan. New York: Routledge. 2005. Print.
• Longhurst, Brian, et al. Introducing Cultural Studies. 2nd ed. England: Pearson Longman.2008. Print.
• Norris, Chris. Deconstruction. 3rd ed. Routledge: London. 2002. Print.
• Smart, Barry. Michel Foucault. Rev Ed. New York: 2002. Print
• Vice, Sue. Introducing Bhaktin. UK: Manchester University Press. 1997. Print.
• Zima, V Peter. Deconstruction and Critical Theory. New York: Continuum. 2002. Print.