Let me help:
"The move from a structuralist account ("Structuralist" means 'I hate more successful people, but I also hate myself for hating them, so I'm saying they can't help being jerks, because it's all part of the system.')
in which capital (References to "capital" mean "Waaahh! It's unfair that people make millions for making stuff people want when I only get a professor's salary and I'm so much smarter.")
is understood to structure social relations ("Waahhh! Rich people can get dates and I can't!)
in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation ("The masses don't even know their being brainwashed when they give pretty women more respect than me. It's just repetition that brainwashed them!")
brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory ("Althusserian Theory" means "Our intellectual fingerpainting really is helping those poor masses we claim to love but whose neighborhoods we'd never live in. As intellectuals, we truly are noble. Let us bow to the mirror.")
that takes structural totalities ("Totalities--am I standing up to the oppresive system or what?")
as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony ("Ha! It may just sound like I'm complaining about not getting dates, but I really have come up with something new!)
as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. ("Ha! I'm on to the popular people! They have some strategy for making me hate myself. I know they do!")
So I think it all means "Waahhhh!"
LOL. Yeah, but just saying "Waahhhh!" isn't enough to get you tenured at Berkely.
in which capital (References to "capital" mean "Waaahh! It's unfair that people make millions for making stuff people want when I only get a professor's salary and I'm so much smarter.")
"Capital" is the basis of this author's conception of social relations. Specifically, it refers to her cousin, who screwed up all through high school,and after managing two years at community college snagged a job with some retail outfit. Now it's all she hears about from her mother, "your cousin X this," she says and "your cousin x's new house" and "his lovely wife Xess, and "your cousin took me out to dinner in his new Mercedes..." and on and on.
The Scholar's soliloquy: "Within two years of starting the little turd was an assistant manager pulling almost 70 thou a year, not including benefits. He took up golf. Golf. And then he met the V.P., you know, playing golf, and now he sends me post cards from Fiji or some damn place where he's playing, you guessed it, golf with his big wheel buddies and drinking single-malt scotch, simultaneously. I get these post cards in the dead of winter while I'm freezing my ass off in this miserable city where I teach these little zombies six hours a week and spend 12 in meetings."
"I wrote poetry, studied and sucked up, my teachers called me 'gifted.' He screwed around and played baseball, that little philistine (whoops, shouldn't have said that...)"
That's all the time I have at the moment, but this is a deep well. All are invited to participate in this exegesis.
Total presence breaks on the univocal predication of the exterior absolute the absolute existent (of that of which it is not possible to univocally predicate an outside, while the equivocal predication of the outside of the absolute exterior is possible of that of which the reality so predicated is not the reality, viz., of the dark/of the self, the identity of which is not outside the absolute identity of the outside, which is to say that the equivocal predication of identity is possible of the self-identity which is not identity, while identity is univocally predicated of the limit to the darkness, of the limit of the reality of the self). This is the real exteriority of the absolute outside: the reality of the absolutely unconditioned absolute outside univocally predicated of the dark: the light univocally predicated of the darkness: the shining of the light univocally predicated of the limit of the darkness: actuality univocally predicated of the other of self-identity: existence univocally predicated of the absolutely unconditioned other of the self. The precision of the shining of the light breaking the dark is the other-identity of the light. The precision of the absolutely minimum transcendence of the dark is the light itself/the absolutely unconditioned exteriority of existence for the first time/the absolutely facial identity of existence/the proportion of the new creation sans depth/the light itself ex nihilo: the dark itself univocally identified, i.e., not self-identity identity itself equivocally, not the dark itself equivocally, in “self-alienation,” not “self-identity, itself in self-alienation” “released” in and by “otherness,” and “actual other,” “itself,” not the abysmal inversion of the light, the reality of the darkness equivocally, absolute identity equivocally predicated of the self/selfhood equivocally predicated of the dark (the reality of this darkness the other-self-covering of identity which is the identification person-self).