Frank, Manfred ‘s term for what is more usually referred to as post-structuralism. Frank argues that post-structuralism is inappropriately named because the body of work it refers to cannot be thought of or understood independently of structuralism. In his view, it is better thought of as neostructuralism because it can be seen as a continuation of the structuralist project, with new means. As Frank sees it, neostructuralism is an essentially French movement, albeit one with adherents all over the world, that owes its impetus to the events of May ’68. Astutely, Frank identifies a common distaste for the metaphysical concepts of domination and system linking the otherwise quite disparate work of Derrida, Jacques, Deleuze, Gilles, Foucault, Michel, Kristeva, Julia, and Lyotard, Jean-François. But he is troubled by what he sees as an amoral celebration of the death of the subject that goes together with this position. Further Reading: M. Frank Was ist Neostrukturalismus? (1984), translated as What is Neostructuralism? (1989).