In the late twentieth century, poststructuralism’s principles were met with criticism in academic circles, particularly those in the United States. Instructors and professors, on the left, felt that it would prove of no benefit to their cause. With all their misplaced late 1960’s bravura concerning new ideas and movements, leftists rejected poststructuralism for its disdain of a unified, one outcome structure. The same structure introduced into the first universities in Europe by the universalist or catholic church with its inculcated condemnation of forward-thinking, outside, 'other-than-us' ideas. Their approach to learning and the structure of universities has not fundamentally changed since their inception circa 1209.
The academic left chooses not to diverge from this antiquated system since socialism and inveterate communism demand structure. Why teach students that poststructuralism operates on tenets which revolve around the concept that literature and art can never reach full closure or that analysis can produce unexpected, multiple outcomes. Poststructuralists believe there is never one, definitive outcome. This view of learning is full of creativity, opportunity, and forward movement. This view of the world does not take you backward on the human timeline to the 1840’s (pre-Industrial Revolution) inception of communism, but forward into multiple solutions for a diverse human world that possesses varied needs and requires varied approaches to necessities and difficulties.
What is it about poststructuralism that frightens the majority of academicians: an anything goes attitude and engaging, unexpected results.
--e. smith sleigh
These Things are a One Thing website >> http://bit.ly/iionKS
http://amzn.to/ijj6O2
http://amzn.to/nM2Hxu
http://amzn.to/zPyncK
http://amzn.to/1bDkd3e