New Perspectives on Structuralism, Poststructuralism et al

Among the contemporary alternative critical
readings on structuralism and poststructuralism
that stand out are the following:-
1 Wendell V. Harris: Literary Meaning - Reclaiming the Study
of Literature (New York Univ. Press, 1996)
2 Wendell V. Harris (ed): Beyond Poststructuralism - The Speculations of Theory and the Experience of Literature (Penn State University Press, 1996)
3 Leonard Jackson: The Poverty of Structuralism
(Longman Group UK Ltd., 1991)
4 Eugene Goodheart: The Sceptic Disposition -
Deconstruction, Ideology, and Other Matters
(Princeton Univ. Press, 1984)
5 J. Arac, W. Godzich, W. Martin, (eds.): The Yale Critics -
Deconstruction in America (Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1983)

Prof. Harris' book on Literary Meaning is impressively cogent in
tracing crucial flaws in the deconstructionist argument; as he explains
in the introduction to his book:
Deconstruction is no longer the magic word, many a recent essay and
review tells us, and Derrida no longer the infallible prophet. For those
of us who have felt that the trick of turning lead into gold is interesting
but hardly profitable, that is good news.
However, eristic strategies and fallacious forms of argument to which
deconstruction and related movements have accustomed us continue to
litter the intellectual landscape. One finds the same journals that announce
the decline and fall of deconstruction still cluttered by deconstructive
vocabulary and tricks of argument. I make no apology for wishing to
contribute to the unfinished business of pushing certain intellectual debris
out of the way. (Literary Meanining, 1996: 5)

His book on poststructuralism is a collection of essays penned by a number of prominent literary scholars providing a wide-ranging antidote to the "disabling confusions of current literary theory" serving to hasten the decline of poststructuralist dominance.

Literary Meaning

It might seem obvious that literary meaning is different from meaning in scientific writing in the sense that emotive responses to the text would be considered not only irrelevant but misleading in scientific writing while contexts in which the communication is made would appear to have little or no bearing on its meaning; the idea is to get at the meat embodied in the words - (to use an old analogy) the words are simply a vehicle delivering the goods so to speak, which would be considered to be detachable from the vehicle. Thus the dependence on formulae - which would deliver the highest level of accuracy for scientific communication. It might seem less obvious that even in the humanities the gap between say, historical writing and literary writing is almost as great. This becomes clear when we assess the historical account of a significant event; do we not expect a suspension of authorial prejudices that often tend to colour the account ; do we not agree that Macaulay's account of the French Revolution is weakened by his penchant for taking sides and being emotionally involved? Do we not rate him as an interesting writer but a bad historian? In other words the expectation is that historical writing should hold the emotions in abeyance if it is to be taken seriously as an attempt at arriving at the truth. We are thus looking for the pure truth unsullied by emotional attachments...
However, we all know that whenever we use language there is no escaping
a) the accompanying emotional moss derived as a consequence of usage over long periods of time - much of it inherited and beyond the control of specific individuals. &
b) the context which provides for a perspective from which to view the communication. In addition to the emotional layering derived from associations based on cultural context as well as individual experience, there is the question of literary form - whether one writes an ode, a haiku or employs a rhyme scheme, all these will have an impact on the kind of communication being made through the literary work. In fact, it would be a misnomer to see the work as expressing a message. Literary meaning occurs when you perceive the work as a whole addressing all
aspects of the textual experience: emotive content, conceptual substance, formal and visual signage...Literary meaning is when the vehicle is the message.

One can therefore conclude that literary meaning is much more complex
a creature than that encountered in the extraction of meaning in the other
disciplines of the humanities or in the sciences - where we don't have to
contend with questions like "Is meaning what is intended by the author?"
or "Is it created and contained by the text itself" or "Is it created by the
reader?" Literature is all inclusive: the intentions of the author are certainly
not entirely irrelevant; the text is also the starting point in the generation
of meaning; and finally, the reader through his response to the
text participates in a significant way in its creation...

The above point of view implies, of course, that there is a reality
beyond language - which might be contested by some; while
understanding that the gap between that position & the one we are
advancing here, it might suffice to point out that that view is as old
hat as Bishop Berkeley's position.
Consider this question: if the whole of humanity disappeared due to
a global Tsunami, would the world disappear since there would be
no more languages? Of course the world would still exist even
without humanity although one would have to agree that the world's
existence would be of no account to humanity any more...