Eagleton, "Post-Structuralism"

I love Eagleton! (That was sarcasm. Typing that just made me a little sick actually.)

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/AngelaPalumbo/2009/03/eagletons_description_of_post-.html

Why is History repeating itself and Literature...hmmm...

Eagleton...not so bad this time.

Deconstructing Without Realizing
“Structuralism was generally satisfied if it could carve up a text into binary oppositions (high/low, light/dark, Nature/Culture and so on) and expose the logic of their working. Deconstruction tries to show how such oppositions, in order to hold themselves in place, are sometimes betrayed into inverting or collapsing themselves, or need to banish to the text’s margins certain niggling details which can be made to return and plague them” (Eagleton 115-6).
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/GretaCarroll/2009/03/deconstructing_without_realizi.html

hmmmmm I think I get it.

"...committed to a belief in some ultimate 'word' presence, essence, truth or reality which will act as the foundation of all our thought, language, and experience. It has yearned for the sign which will give meaning to all others-the 'transcendental signifier'-and for the anchoring, unquestionable meaning to which all our signs can be seen to point..." (Eagleton 113).

So, language is basically volatile and uncertain.

The map is not the territory...

“That any such transcendental meaning is a fiction—though perhaps a necessary fiction—is one consequence of the theory of language I have outlined. There is no concept which is not embroiled in an open-ended play of signification, shot through with the traces and fragments of other ideas” (Eagleton 114).

http://blogs.setonhill.edu/EricaGearhart/2009/03/-from_terry_eagletons_literary.html

What do you signify?
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/JennaMiller/2009/03/what-do-you-signify.html