adding 'post'

According to Barry, post-structuralists believe that structuralists do not follow through in their views on language. I believe that by adding ‘post’ in front of structuralism it is implying that it has connections to the structuralist idea but has modified it in some way. It is a criticism of structuralism and is implying a end to those beliefs and a new, reformed idea in post-structuralism.
Both try to understand texts through language and view language as a system but what each view is based on and what they look for differs from each other. Structuralism is a more scientific based idea that derives from linguistics. It wants to make logical deductions and reach reliable conclusions. Post-structuralism on the other hand is a more philosophical idea. It feels you can not know everything for certain and it calls into questions things that we usually take for granted. There is also an argument about a fixed point or a center. I believe if I am correct, that post-structuralism believes that without a fixed point you have no certain standard to measurer things by. They believe there is no fixed point and that’s why they can question things more. Also on page 72 in Barry I found the compare list he gave very helpful in seeing the differences between the two ideas:
Structuralism vs. Post-structuralism
-Parallels/echoes -Contradictions/paradoxes
-Balances -Shifts/breaks in:
-Reflections/repetitions tone, time, person,
-Symmetry attitude, viewpoint, tense
-Contrasts -Conflicts
-Patterns -Absences/omissions
-Linguistic quirks

The effects of each are different as well. Structuralism’s effect is to show textual unity and coherence where post-structuralism’s effect is to show textual disunity. Since post-structuralism is a philosophy based idea I feel that is obviously the influence for it to look for ‘disunity’ in a text.
As said in class, deconstruction is post-structuralism put to practice. It is reading a text against itself. In Barry it says, “a deconstructive reading uncovers the unconscious rather then the conscious dimension of the text […]” (71) which is a very philosophical approach. It looks to complicate and question the text. So obviously post-structuralism has a direct effect on deconstruction and without structuralism there would be no post-structuralism.
Another issue I found interesting was addressed on pg 63 in Barry where it talked about the distinctions between structuralism and post-structuralism within attitude and language. It said that structuralism believes the world is constructed through language. We get our ideas of reality through language. Post-structuralism doesn’t really buy this. They feel that “the verbal sign is constantly floating free of the concept it is supposed to designate.” You need opposites to make meaning of a word. They give the example of night. Without referencing to day you would not know night. I agree with this because yes you would know that it gets darker outside at a certain time and you can attach the word ‘night’ to this but without experiencing day and light, night would have no real meaning to you.