system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How did structuralism lead to post-structuralism?

If it did it at all? Thanks :)
gpt
Structuralist like Claude Levi Strauss were interested in discovering laws of human society and behavior. They did this by studying the history and anthropology of the world, especially places and times at deviance with the present moment. Post Structuralists said that these alleged scientific laws about society or behavior were really just hamstrung by the perspective of the structuralists themselves... so the post structuralists criticized the timeless universalist claims of structuralism (which claimed to discover fundamental underlying structures) and tried to show the difficulty of making claims about all of history/humanity without taking a stance on history/the human which was historically parochial (epochal for Heidegger, epistemic in Foucault talk).  

Structuralist: Claude Levi Strauss, Althusser, etc. 

Post Structuralist: Michel Foucault (though people are claiming he was a neoliberal at heart). 

How did it structuralism lead to post structuralism? Well originally people said things like “Africans are primitive”, structuralists claimed that dynamics of African tribal family structure were indicative of underlying dynamics at work in Western European families too... and then the post structuralists said, the notion of a family as understood as such and of the methods for comparative analysis are fundamentally reflective of a peculiar historical attempt to discover/invent/force comparisons in order to render foreigners knowable and therefore malleable for our power structure. We will assume they really are just like French families, and then we will make it so, and force our way of life on them. 

Allegedly... Derrida claimed that this is neither good nor bad so we cannot really criticize it, and this is considered post post structuralist aka deconstructivist. There is a curious parallel mirroring of the original pre structuralist view and the de constructivist one. Deconstructionist claim that they don’t take a stance on anything, that they want to show how language forces people to take a stance and be biased when it is used in traditional manner but there can be more inclusive ways to use language that preclude being parochial whereas post Structuralists say it is inevitable to have to take a stance on your present moment and they try to be open-honest about it (disclosing their own biases and identity and such). 

Contemporary analytic philosophy and mainstream academic science feels more aligned to structuralism because the notion of discoverable timeless rules and dynamics formed the historical development of most knowledge in their view. At best they will concede that this is a work in progress and we need dissenting views to iteratively clarify our understanding. In which case they end up somewhere like Descartes and Hegel sketched... and Heidegger’s criticisms of Husserl’s inside/outside distinction could be levied against them as could later Wittgenstein.