Since existential faith is both ‘post’ and ‘structuralist’. Let’s

Since
taking up IS 290 as an outsider from the premise of social science I was hell
bent since day one to understand which theory I best fit in. Be it a realist or
a liberalist or even perhaps as Marxist. Till the day I understood what
Postmodernism is. Or so I thought. As one reads on Postmodernism, various
fields in a person’s life gets changed. ¬†From
the way he may view things to the way he addresses things. Postmodernism has engaged
my thinking as to what is the best way to approach a subject matter. It has
left an open door with other types of theories in International Relations.
Postmodernism has provided me the idea of enforcing the process of
deconstruction to which is why by addressing the question as to whether a postmodernism
is useful, and for what, is to clarify what it is we are actually pinpointing
about when we speak about postmodernism. One may derive from the term that its
supporters eagerly distances themselves from certain aspects of what the
structure is without however fully admonishing the idea of it: their
existential faith is both ‘post’ and ‘structuralist’. Let’s deconstruct this
statement. Structuralism is a wide term which appoints a range of different
approaches in the human sciences which in this case is International Relations.
What these two have in common is the stance that the most productive standpoint
into examining society is by the nature of the relations among the parts making
up the investigated social structure. This makes it quite different from
individualism, which deduces that society does not exist as an occurrence with either
inherent or superficial powers, or that, we find all social constructs must
start from the properties, or the beliefs, interests of an individual. In comparison,
where structuralism posts as that any social element that being be a person,
state or god exists only in particularly patterned in a way that its
constituted relations connecting them to other components in a system, and that
one can only grasp the value of each component by analyzing it in the manner of
its insertion into a structure of social relations.