Editorial: the Reception of Post-Structuralism in Educational Research and Policy
Michael Peters,Walter Humes
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043119
2003-01-01
Journal of Education Policy
Abstract:The reception of post-structuralism in the English-speaking world has been both varied and uneven. ‘Post-structuralism’, as an Americanism that tends to obscure the often deep-seated differences and styles of thinkers grouped together under this term, was initially more readily received in departments of literature than in departments of philosophy. Indeed, where the latter were especially hostile, the former were hospitable. Much of the post-structuralist canon dealt with the act of literature and developed forms of criticism that were not easily contained within disciplinary boundaries. Analytic philosophers have found the question of style difficult to deal with; they were unhappy with the new methods ^ deconstruction, semanalysis, genealogy ^ questioning whether they were sufficiently ‘philosophical’ and rigorous. Yet, as the philosophers quarrelled and engaged in demarcation disputes, the work of first generation post-structuralist thinkers became more absorbed into the fabric of the humanities and social sciences. While post-structuralist thought was seized upon in the emerging fields of cultural studies and film studies, it was also opposed by traditional and neo-marxists, especially in the early days by self-styled critical theorists. The question of the reception of post-structuralism needs to be written for specific countries, locations and disciplines for the American and British experience differs considerably, as it does for other countries. Gordon (1996: 253), for instance, remarks that ‘The British reception of Foucault’s work has been difficult and uncertain’ and yet he goes on to observe the way in which ‘Foucault drew attention to an element of critical thought in the Scots creators of political economy’ (p. 255) and attached particular importance to Fergusson’s idea of civil society. Gordon also begins to flesh out an account of the differences between Foucault and the British historians, especially those who saw Marxism as the science of history. As he says, the intellectual signature of the British Left is the way in which social history replaces historical sociology as the vehicle for Gramscian ‘organic’ intellectuals to live their lives as part of the existential task of recreating democratic elements of a common culture. Perhaps, today, we are now more sensitive to the valences of cultural context and less likely to parade ideological commitments as ‘truths’. The bitter antagonisms on the Left which characterized the 1980s seem to have given way to a greater theoretical sophistication and creativity; perhaps even a preparedness to entertain what might have seemed like heresy only a mere decade ago. This antagonism was evident, for example, in the endless arguments over State Theory. On the one hand, Foucault, as Gordon (1996: 263) acknowledges, ‘was inclined to make fun of what he called a tendency . . . toward ‘‘State-phobia’’ ’ and, on the other, he offended the moralists