Structuralism and poststructuralism
in Critical theory and epistemology
Abstract only
Get Access to Full Text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Access Tokens

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

This chapter argues that no matter how hard the structuralists and post-structuralists try to avoid dealing with scientific dialectics, or as much as they merely reject it, their thinking still remains within the confines of dialectics. Following parallel lines of evolution, structuralism and poststructuralism relate to a phenomenological perspective on the sciences that intends to reveal a more rigorous science, which is achieved either a priori, as in Edmund Husserl, or a posteriori, as in ethnomethodology. The chapter shows that even if structures help the reader of epistemology to understand the scientific edifice, there can be no performative structure with dysfunctional or non-existent subjects of action. Furthermore, it addresses the implicit but remarkable 'anxiety' of structuralism and poststructuralism as far as the void of scientific elenchus is concerned. Poststructuralism attempts to address the previous deficit by prioritizing scientific reflexivity that produces accountability criteria for the sciences.

Critical theory and epistemology

The politics of modern thought and science

INFORMATION
METRICS

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 108 23 2
Full Text Views 34 23 0
PDF Downloads 15 10 0
RELATED CONTENT