The theoretical approaches, invented by the practitioners of any academic discipline, determine the status of knowledge of that discipline. These approaches are not static, but rather dynamic, and their dynamism is positively influenced by the further developments in the status of knowledge. Hence, the process is not unidirectional, but rather dialectical. (Post) structuralism is such a theoretical approach, which has ubiquitous applicability in the sense that it is applicable not only to the linguistic world, but also to the ecological world and social world ceteris paribus. But its true origin, which is controversial, is a case of curious neglect. The subtle search for new truth does not ignore the thoroughly forgotten past, and so it is worth digging into the past again to disclose the faults and misjudgments of our forerunners to arrive at a “new truth” against the “established truth” by the principle of “informed ignorance” coined by the German cardinal, mathematician, experimental scientist and influential philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464 AD) in his On Learned Ignorance (1440).

Academic disciplines do not develop in isolation. They respond to the concerns of the wider society to which their practitioners belong, and in so responding, they can influence the course of social and cultural change (Milton, 1997, p. 477). The theoretical approaches, invented by the practitioners of any academic discipline, determine the status of knowledge of that discipline. These approaches are not static, but rather dynamic, and their dynamism is positively influenced by the further developments in the status of knowledge. Hence, the process is not unidirectional, but rather dialectical. (Post) structuralism is such a theoretical approach, which has ubiquitous applicability in the sense that it is applicable not only to the linguistic world, but also to the ecological world and social world ceteris paribus. However, its true origin, which is controversial, is a case of curious neglect. The principle of “informed ignorance”, coined by the German cardinal, mathematician, experimental scientist and influential philosopher Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464 AD) in his On Learned Ignorance (1440), implies that the more we know, the more aware we will be of our ignorance, and the further we penetrate into informed ignorance, the closer we come to the truth itself. Needless to say, he stresses the incomplete nature of our knowledge of God and of the universe, and he also describes the learned person as the one, who is aware of his ignorance. But the search for new truth does not ignore the thoroughly forgotten past, and so it is worth digging into the past again to disclose the faults and misjudgments of our forerunners to arrive at a new truth: “Who are the true originators of (post) structuralism?” Thus, this article seeks to substitute the “new truth” [that is, the real originators of (post) structuralism] for the “established truth” [that is, traditionally received originators of (post) structuralism] by an attempt to achieve a state of “informed ignorance”. In other words, it tries to disclose that the seeds of (post) structuralism were sown prior to the beginning of the 1920s, as opposed to the dominant doctrines.

English Studies Journal, Intra-Psychic Defense Mechanisms, Anita Desai, Humanistic Psychoanalyst, Neurotic Development, Familial Obligations, Biological Limitations, Psychological Limitations, Foreign Universities, English Governesses.