Cristopher Norris published five poems in Performance Philosophy This is the one on structuralism:
STRUCTURALISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS
"The mind cannot remain at rest in a mere repertorization of its own recurrent aberrations; it is bound to systematize its own negative self-insight into categories that have at least the appearance of passion, novelty, and difference."
Paul de Man, ‘Roland Barthes and the Limits of Structuralism’ (1990)
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Granted, all signifiers slip and slide,
Yet bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
The gap between might be just empty space
With nothing meant since meaning’s open wide.
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
If breaking up seems easier to face
When past intent affords no future guide,
Those bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
Splendid idea for structuralists to base
Their doctrine on, though here it’s misapplied:
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Too much gets lost in synchrony’s embrace
As it canutes all thought of time and tide
While bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
‘If signs make sense,’ they say, ‘then it’s by grace
Of signifiers, not things signified.’
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
And if they say such doubts are out of place
Since theorists have the whole thing cut-and-dried,
Then bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
Behold those structures crumbling apace.
Time-lapse affirms what synchrony denied.
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Lacanians think the signifier-chase
Goes on and on, but that idea’s belied
When bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
For we’re the sorts who need to interlace
Times past and present lest they subdivide
And that neat theory retrofits our case
So bygone signifieds can leave no trace.
STRUCTURALISM AND ITS DISCONTENTS
"The mind cannot remain at rest in a mere repertorization of its own recurrent aberrations; it is bound to systematize its own negative self-insight into categories that have at least the appearance of passion, novelty, and difference."
Paul de Man, ‘Roland Barthes and the Limits of Structuralism’ (1990)
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Granted, all signifiers slip and slide,
Yet bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
The gap between might be just empty space
With nothing meant since meaning’s open wide.
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
If breaking up seems easier to face
When past intent affords no future guide,
Those bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
Splendid idea for structuralists to base
Their doctrine on, though here it’s misapplied:
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Too much gets lost in synchrony’s embrace
As it canutes all thought of time and tide
While bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
‘If signs make sense,’ they say, ‘then it’s by grace
Of signifiers, not things signified.’
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
And if they say such doubts are out of place
Since theorists have the whole thing cut-and-dried,
Then bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
Behold those structures crumbling apace.
Time-lapse affirms what synchrony denied.
Neat theory, but I doubt it fits our case.
Lacanians think the signifier-chase
Goes on and on, but that idea’s belied
When bygone signifieds still leave their trace.
For we’re the sorts who need to interlace
Times past and present lest they subdivide
And that neat theory retrofits our case
So bygone signifieds can leave no trace.
