Thanks for watching all! If you’ve enjoyed this video, please do share to anyone else who you think might like! And, if you’d like to check out my Patreon, that’d be much appreciated: patreon.com/tomnicholas

Tom, you always look so happy when presenting this stuff, and I want you to know, that this is very inspirational c:

For every random thought you have at 4am, there is a philosophical theory...

Post-structuralism and postmodernism are frequently attacked for supposedly being anti-reason anti-Enlightenment. These theories invite you to consider whether or nor your language and your ways of thinking are accomplishing what you set out to accomplish with them. Anyone truly interested in reason and truth should be not just willing but eager to consider that question. To dismiss those theories that focus on the question seems like the cowardly act of someone who suspects they won't like the answers they uncover.

11:20 to further support the hypothesis discussed at the timestamp, the word "high" for example can also be contrasted not with "low" but with "sober" instead.

"It is impossible to speak in such a way that one cannot be misunderstood." - Karl Popper

that moment, when you're about to enjoy some delicious theory, and then remember, that Derrida already ruined it for everyone

You have been blessed with outstanding talents as a presenter. But more than being simply a good voice reading from a script, you have a depth of understanding of your topic, and present it with enthusiasm. No one could ever go to sleep in one of your lectures. EXCELLENT JOB ! More, More, More ! ☺

thank you for this!! my prof makes absolutely no sense and you're a life saver.

Your channel needs to blow up now! You do such a great job explaining the nuances of these post-modern movements without a hint of bias, while at the same time correctly using the overly-esoteric language deconstructionists use to make it incredibly easy for a layman like me to understand clearly.

One thing I really love with your channel, is that you always provide the source of your information, so that the viewer can go and check it out for themselves. This makes your videos really useful for helping me understand a certain topic or theory better, when writing an assignment, as I don't really have to take your word for it, because you provide the source of your info both in the video itself, and in the description. Too many channels, while really great at communicating their content, lack any real source of information, so the viewer just has to trust that they know what they are talking about. You're always very professional and academic with your content, which is why your channel is the one I resort to the most, when I want to get into a new academical topic.

You deserve more subscribers this channel is fantastic!

Great idea to frame Derrida etc. in part through discussion of the film Get Out. Just saw it for the first time a couple of weeks ago & it continues to resonate! Great work and as ever, liked & shared.

Just recently stumbled across your channel. Your delivery is clear and consice. Thank you for the work you put into your videos and for presenting information in an energetic and animated way.

I appreciate how easy it is to understand all this complex stuff through your videos. Thank you!

Thank you so much, I have been struggling to understand my Lit Theory course for weeks now, and talking to my teacher hasn't improved my understanding. None of other Lit courses have spoken about any of these thoughts or ideas, and just allowed me to analyze literature. I have always been able to understand and explain any given text, and the outcome has always been my teachers expounding my natural ability for understanding complicated literature. For whatever reason though, within the bubble of Lit Theory I feel like someone is reading stereo instructions that no one can really understand. Your video helped provide me with valuable insight, don't get me wrong I may watch it a few times to make triply sure that I understand, but it was the first time I have felt comfortable with my course and upcoming assignments in weeks.

Thank you! I'm writing a paper on post structuralism in Waiting For Godot, and this came at the perfect time.

You are an absolute legend. It's great to just watch you while you talk too (it's hard to write that without it coming across as a little odd perhaps?), your expressions and gesticulations really add to the energy in such a positive way.

I’ve yet to read Derrida. I have watched some videos of him talking. I’ve watched countless videos about him and his ideas. This was a fantastic video from what I can judge. I’ve yet to understand how to articulate the structure in which you present your perspective but I can tell you that I enjoy it very much and will often come to your videos for summaries before I start delving in further. Thank you so much for your work! I appreciate it greatly!

I'm in awe, with how well articulated you are. You have a gift, when it comes to getting a point across!

One of the best videos I’ve seen on this topic, well done!

Brand new sub. Just watched the videos on structuralism and this one, some of the most accessible takes on these topics I've ever seen. Thanks!

I did my English degree at Leeds Uni in the late 90s and it was very much focused through the lens of post-structuralism. I remember the first lecture even now. It was on Death of the Author. They told us to unlearn the parroted fixed meanings of A Level English, to contextualise and ultimately disregard the canon, and to trust our own judgement and analysis. Was pretty mind-blowing. Is it still taught like this?

You explain everything with a smiling face and so much expressions. It's so good altogether!

I absolutely love your crystal clear way of articulating complex matters, as well as your passion. Thank you.

This video has actually helped reshape the way I think about writing music for audience and for clients. So just wanted to say thanks from someone on the practical ends of these philosophies!

I don't know how I have literally only *just* found your channel, Tom. Awesome video -- I'm gonna go watch all of them!

You're very skilled at building up information to audiences (such as myself) that are unfamiliar with these sorts of theories. The energy you bring to your explanations helped me, a person with ADHD stay focused and engaged. Incredible job!

Very glad I stumbled upon this channel. You're going places friend. Thank you for the lovely work.

Once again, excellent, clear, and appreciated summary. I wish your videos were available when I tackled these ideas and texts basically on my own prior to the rise of resources like yours on the internet.

It feels like with postmodernism and post structuralism there is no where else to go in terms of "moving beyond" that line of thinking. Like we have come to the conclusion that there is no objective truth or reality, so now what? In terms of visual art at least, i feel as though i am seeing a lot more work being produced that is focused on personal narrative, the communication of individual truths and experiences. Not that that hasn't been around for a long time, but it seems especially popular in contemporary society. I just wonder where we go from here. Great video! I love your work, it's always so thought-provoking.

This is so helpful Tom! Thank you for all of your work making theory more accessible to all!

I'm so glad your channel exists! I'd love to see a video about Bourdieu's habitus and Turner's liminality :)

Brilliant man. Your videos are so full of energy, clear examples, explanations and visuals

Thank you so much for this video! Philosophical paradigms always seem far too abstract for me, so I really appreciate you explaining this in such simple, easy to understand terms.

I am really excited about your videos and the way you unfold the rather complex topics. Thanks a lot for this! Wondering if you could do a video on Metamodernism?? as that might become a quite relevant continuation on postmodernism and especially poststructuralism!

I get a real 'ah I see' moment with theories from your videos. If you have any plans for ecocriticism / Romanticism WTF's my undergrad grades will be forever grateful. 👍

Thank you, finally someone who explains it well and who speaks at a pace that hinders me from falling asleep.

Very bright Young man! Keep up the Noble Work, Good Sir! Your ability to explain the most complex concepts in a way easily grssped by ordinary blokes like myself is a most singular talent that demands notice. Thank You!

This channel is pure gold keep it up mate!!! Would love to see a video about Zizek by you.

Hi Tom, great content! Well done. I'm throwing my hat in the ring here and wondering if, at some point, you will do a video on Mieke Bal?

Exactly what i needed right now! Thank you very much Tom. Sending you love and virtual hugs from Indonesia. Xoxo

This was a very insightful and useful information for my exams, thank you for making this!

Tom, you are a powerhouse of knowledge !! Finally, I understand this theory and it makes so much sense now. THANK YOU!!

That's a nice introduction! I have a problem though. If we start from: 1) the impossibility of determining with a 100% certainty what the author meant; following it with 2) skepticism about final or objective meaning of any text and 3) a reader (or a critic) shifting to the role of PRODUCER of meanings in the text then why the poststructuralist criticism of any text/discourse is not just the criticism of what a reader/critic himself MAKES of the text in question?

Peter Barry’s Beginning Theory is the text I turned to in my graduate Literary Theory class. Coupled with a world-class professor and study groups, I wrote one of the most difficult essays of my life. Derrida provided the tools, Marx provided the lens, Don DeLillo provided the subject of my scrutiny, and Barry, the guide (along with a Lit Theory text thicker than a 1970s LA phone book) I followed to maintain the correct path. I’m not sure how many of your viewers are students and how many, like myself, just love the theory and practice of critical thought at this level? But, your explanation was spot-on - articulate, direct, and intuitive - delivering an accessible understanding that should be accessible by everyone with an interest in the social and cultural clashes we face every day. Unfortunately, there is an entire segment of our society who do not or possibly cannot see the correlation between language and behavior, just as they seemingly cannot see the long-term consequences (intended or otherwise) of the obsessive pursuit of their own desires at the expense of society, itself. It’s remarkable to me, for instance, that Ron DeSantis, an American governor from the state of Florida, graduated Harvard University with a degree in History and Yale with a Juris Prudence degree, yet vilifies Crtical Race Theory as some liberal progressive attempt to “rewrite history” and “brainwash [our] kids.” There are only two possible reasons for this absurd interpretation: either Ivy League schools in America have lost the quality that made them desirable for over a century, or DeSantis somehow managed to graduate summa cum laude/cum laude, respectively, by pretense executed so convincingly that it fooled the faculties of two of our most highly respected institutions of learning. Or, he managed to skirt the subject of theory through choice of courses. I’m not certain if that’s possible, but seems reasonable given what I know about the applications of theory in my own degree programs. The final possibility, that he’s just pandering to an audience terrified of what they call “the elites” - smart people with high levels of education, massive fortunes, and membership in some phantom cabal or another - in order to further terrorize them into a dependence upon him to save them. It’s like the Salem witch trials of the 17th century, though I’m not sure the people who started or perpetuated the myth of witchcraft were angling for political power while doing so? The irony of the situation is not lost on me, however. The “elites” they fear, just as the Salem witches, don’t exist. There are smart people who understand society, culture, and lament their deterioration; others who are ruthless, manipulative, business people whose only goal is the accumulation of ever-greater sums of wealth through exploitation and manipulation and at the expense of society, itself; and there are politicians on a spectrum between them. The irony is that the smart people in academia are the witches, the wealthy business people, the witch hunters, and politicians, their prosecutors - the people most well-equipped to save America are the people that growing segment of the population openly fears. They trust Rupert Murdoch and the single-syllabic modes of communication they receive from people who are openly, unapologetically manipulating them straight into their own demise while the rest of us stand by shaking our heads and wondering if we’re entering an American Dark Ages by willful ignorance?

Mr Tom Nicholas, I cannot thank you enough for the explanation you gave in this video. I was really struggling to understand deconstruction and in just over 20 minutes you have taught me more than my lecturers have done in the last 8 weeks. (deconstruct that lol)

Brilliant and thought-provoking, as always. Thanks Tom! I'm really not informed about any of this work but two things struck me as I watched the video. Firstly, in countries where the language contains fewer gendered terms (e.g. Chinese), sexism is still rampant. So how much responsibility can English's gendered terms take for societal gender imbalances? Is sexism more extreme in Spain, France, and other European nations because of their language? My gut reaction is no... Secondly, how do some of these authors deal with the irony of writing and publishing their ideas? I'm a writer by profession and sweat over word choice for hours, is that even necessary if my work is simply going to be distorted by the reader's mind? :D

Oh I'm late! Such a good view on poststructuralism. Hey, Tom, can you recommend some sites or other resources you use to do these researches? Or tell us about your reading!

Thanks for the summary! This is super helpful ☺️

This was indeed an interesting video! But I still wonder about this question: if there are limits to language, if they have inherent biases and favors "binary", how can we be sure to have understood Derrida right? Could be that we totally misunderstood him at all right? And by the way I totally misinterpreted "Get Out" until you cleared that up :D

Great video, excellent examples and clarity of thought.

I've been watching you videos for the last couple of days, superb work! I need to know if you've played The Beginner's Guide, I find that game relates to topics you've described like: Death of the author, semiotics, postdramatic theater, spectacle, and it even narrates the experiences of a games developer. Cheers!

This was so helpful and great. Appreciate it a lot!

Hey Tom, love your videos! Super helpful. I'm trying to get a hold on literary theory for my MA, but am confused as to whether/how Roland Barthes agrees/disagrees with Derrida. Do their views oppose each other or agree (I suspect they do, but to what extent?)

Thank you so much! That has really helped. I like your engaging approach, too!

Thanks for this Tom - I always enjoy your videos. As a beginner in reading Derrida could you just elaborate on why, if language is as flawed as is suggested, we can't read any text any way we want. In other words I can see how objective certainty is removed by this approach what I can't see is how any meaning beyond the entirely subjective could ever be reached. Any thoughts would be welcomed. thank you!

ahhh i found this video during my study of judith butler and this video just drag me into another deep mystery ..... looking forward to see you talk about judith butler!!!

I'm trying to improve my English and your videos are really useful as well as being clearly and effectively argued!

Love the Disrocker intro music. Are you into Discharge or other double beat hardcore punk?

Thank you, Tom. This is one of your best and most illuminating videos. BTW, yes the latter explanation of Derrida's 'There is nothing outside the Text", (that the Text subsumes the whole rest of Reality) is the correct one; Foucalt be damned !

Great video as usual and i thoroughly enjoyed

amazing video, thank you very much for this introduction. I am highly looking forward to your video on Derrida. where I hope you can also discuss how he used the method of deconstruction later in life to write about ethics and politics. Are there any books you could recommend for a beginner like me in cultural studies to read too understand the larger cultural theory of Derrida?

thank you for your positive and enthusiastic attitude

I took a course on literary criticism years ago and never understood post-structuralism, despite reading countless essays by barthes, nietszche, Derrida and others. Now I get it though. Thank you!

This is terrific. I wish you'd been one of my professors 30+ years ago when, as a 19 year-old undergraduate, I was trying to navigate this field, which felt like an ocean voyage with no compass or, indeed, destination most of the time. Maybe that was the point. Even so, I still love it.

This really helped a lot! Thank you! 🌸🌸

Hey I have been watching a lot of your videos lately and I am highly impressed by the way you explain complex things in highly simple and comprehensive way. Although I have a doubt with regard to this particular video. You said that postructuralism brings our attention, which earlier was placed on the biography of the author and the social context in which the text appeared, to the text itself. I somehow find it problematic and confusing for what then is the difference between formalism and post structuralism, even though I know these two terms are as different as A is different from B. I personally feel, and please correct me if I am wrong, that Formalism brings our attention from the author to the text and postructuralism goes a step further and brings our attention to the mind of the reader. The meanings hidden in the text are irrelevant as far as poststrcturalism is concerned. It is only concerned with the meanings we as readers create. Am I correct?

I wish ( some ) my university lecturers were as clear and engaging as you are Sir!

Excellent, I am applying for a master's degree in literature and these help solidify my understanding of these concepts, thanks!

Was waiting for this one c: thx for the great content

I love the way you present!

Love learning about these concepts!

Hi Tom are you going to do one on Hauntology?

Great video sir, keep up the good work

perfectly explained! thank you so much for your efforts

i have a literary criticism final exam tmrw and this video helped so much, thank you!! :)

Thank you so much, Tom, I've always kinda wondered what post structuralism was but of course never bothered to look into it. Seems like most things are really analyzed in a post structuralist way, really, except by people in lit classes.

Thank you from South Korea! I've never quite understood deconstruction before, but this video is amazing,,

I have a Lit exam later today, this is actually a godsend

such a good video! very interesting topic!!

Tom! How have I not watched these all before? Thanks so so much for this video. It is a daunting task to talk about just one of the many topics you cover. This youtube channel is a noble endeavor. Anyways. If you or the general community wouldn't mind, I have a question! You say that poststructuralism has a foregrounding of language as a human creation. This is confusing to me. From what I know about Derrida, it seems to me that language is not at all connected to humans, in fact, the whole point is to dispel that anthropocentric, and theological notion of language (phonocentrically through speech) being a solely human phenomenon that is ultimately divine. The point is to say that speech, and writing are but species of an overall writing, something that comprehends or is the condition for language, at once the outside and the inside. To me, this arche-writing (or differance?) is the exact opposite of a "human creation" because it permeates so many things. I am interested in this for the implications that it has for languages like sign language, which for a long time were not considered to have the same qualities or accuracy of speech... anyways. Goodness that feels like a long question Maybe this is because I only understand Derrida... or that there is a definition for language that I am unaware of. Regardless, I really enjoyed the video. I was surprised by the in-depth analysis of Get Out. I researched it a lot after it came out and was disappointed in the lack of videos that talked about it.

I love and appreciate your work, mind and mode of communication. Thanks Tom! The inherent self contradictions (perhaps performative contradiction?) seem plentiful here, given that you are using language to explain a way of pointing out the inadequacy of language. How is your interpretation of what Peele is doing post-structuralist, rather than ordinary smart analysis of the text and it’s meaning-which is what makes the movie so good, because Peele has deliberately crafted art that evokes those thoughts and feelings. Even if your reply is that I didn’t understand what you really mean, why would that still be important? I think it still is. Good authors and educated readers can come both to a shared sense of the story and it’s subtext or symbolism, as well as perhaps inevitable unintentional themes that exist as part of the given context, time, or just being human. To me the road many go down with postmodern philosophy is one of using reason to argue against reason. That or just wallowing in relativism. I come away from this video still thinking that way, but am open to changing my mind. By the way, curious if you have thoughts about the 1977 letter published in a major French newspaper signed by Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de Bouvoir, and Sartre, calling for the age of consent to be lowered from 15, because this would be liberating for both adults and minors? Seems like they all got something deeply and disturbingly wrong.

Thank you very much, Tom. You actually could make sense of a very complex theory.

Can not wait for the Judith Butler episode!

In France, there is a specific kind of work in French classes, where you have to write an essay about a specific topic. The topic is usually given as a short paragraph of one or two sentences or as a short text written by a famous writer. The passages that your teacher thinks are out of the scope with the topic are usually highlighted in red as "hors-sujet". "Il n'y a pas de hors-texte" in this context means that no interpretation can be deemed wrong as long as this was what was understood by the reader... If you brought as a student this interpretation to the text, then no one can criticise you as being out of scope, because this is what you saw and thought...

That was really good. Thanks for making this video.

Thank you for an informative and pedagogic (didactic) explanation of yet another complex concept! Can you do meta-modernism next?

hi pls answer me to this question i need it in the exam what did derrida and barthes do in an attempt to apply deconstruction?

Wonderful explanation, thank you!

Thank you for the enthusiastic and inspirational video

Could I hire you as a guest speaker at my university? This makes indefinitely more sense than what we were presented with!

Thank you, this was really interesting! 🙏

Relating it with get out really helped in understanding it

For me, as a computer scientist, the problem of the flaws of language seemed obvious early on. Sometimes I teach a beginner's course at the university and one of the first tasks for my students is to write down an algorithm to sort cards. They have to exchange their notes and execute what they receive (using their hands and some cards). The lesson here is clear: it is damn hard to be unambiguous, in fact, without context, it is impossible. As programmers, we always assume a given context (the machine, a programming language, a software library) and we never really know what is exactly (within each register, and so on) going on when the code is executed. Of course, this is not the same thing but it gives me the impression that Derrida has a point.

Hi Tom! There was an explosive social breakdown in Chile in the last weeks. I've heared a lot of people talking about that country being the laboratory for the experiment of neoliberalism. Could you (maybe, some day) talk shortly about it? Or maybe include the issue in one of your future videos?

A useful summary but light on critical analysis. Huge gaping holes can be driven through the work of Derrida, Butler and Foucault especially and similarly through the critique of this work.

Thanks for making these videos.

Love to listen to your videos while smoking a bowl. Great shit as always

So, in the form of a very simplified gist, if I said "Structuralism is the study of structures that underlie cultural texts, and how individual specimens derive meaning in relation to the larger structure, whereas Poststructuralism focuses on analysing the politics inherent in the structures" - will that be a correct observation?