Deconstruction for Dummies

[Victor Eremita]

Ok, so on my spare time away from work, play, and "sleep", I've been trying to understand what Deconstruction is. Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology was impenetrable, so I'm looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia; and here's a couple of points I've been able to gather:

* Deconstruction attempts to become an exercise in deconstruction itself. (e.g. Derrida's deconstruction texts itself undergoes deconstruction)
* Deconstruction attempts to undermine oppositions (e.g. speech/writing, presence/absence)
* Deconstruction targets the metaphysics of presence or logocentrism, which is Western society's privleging of speech over writing.
* Différance is a term utilized by Derrida to show that différance and différence in French is pronounced the same in speech, so it must refer to writing in order to understand the meaning of the word.

Some questions:

1. Speech is said to be more important to Western society because it is somehow more closer to the truth than writing. One aspect of this is that speech includes presence. For example, a person in court must testify in oath and be present at the courtroom; that person cannot submit in writing and be absent from the courtroom.
What about the importance society places more on a written contract rather than an oral contract? A written contract shows some sort of concrete evidence which is closer to truth, than an oral contract which may or may not have occured (assuming no taping devices).

2. From the IEP: "What differentiates différance and différence is inaudible, and this means that distinguishing between them actually requires the written. ... Derrida can simply point out that there is often, and perhaps even always, this type of ambiguity in the spoken word - différence as compared to différance - that demands reference to the written. If the spoken word requires the written to function properly, then the spoken is itself always at a distance from any supposed clarity of consciousness." Différance and différence sound alike in French, as weather and whether sound alike in English. But we use weather and whether in quite different contexts, no? Isn't that how we eliminate ambiguity in the spoken word?

3. About undermining oppositions, this site had an example of how to deconstruct: How to do Deconstruction




First, one identifies a binary pair, like black=white, man=woman, subject=object, etc. Then one reverses or deconstructs it, like black is a variation of white, man makes sense when contrasted with woman, subject cannot exist without an object, etc. Deconstruction "'deconstructs' the underlying hierarchy. For example:

• Our sense of Pooh books is derived from the movies,
  
• Batman is a special kind of villain called a vigilante
  
• Men's sense of their intelligence is dependent on a belief that women are bimbos
  
• "Cowboy heroism" cannot exist without "bad Indians."

Notice how these statements cripple the underlying hierarchy by "deconstructing" the opposition that it depends on. Deconstruction doesn't simply reverse the opposition, nor does it destroy it. Instead it demonstrates its inherent instability. It takes it apart from within, and without putting some new, more stable opposition in its place. If you want to really mess with something, deconstruct it."

Ok, that's all fine and good, but how does this help us, philosophers and society in general? Can we say, rationality is a form of irrationality that is ordered? Or love is a special kind of hate? Or guilty is an abnormal form of innocent? Or understanding life is dependent on death?
What can we learn from this?

[DrZoidberg]

I think all your points are valid. What we gain from applying deconstructionalism is the question, "what is this relative to and how is it effected by it".

Derrida puts his finger on problems that might be unsolvable... but that doesn't mean rejecting deconstructionism is a valid solution. A pretty logical philosophical model with nifty mathematical proofs thrown in is not enough.

The annoying thing about it is that it hardly makes life any easier. Just saying its relative is not staying true to post-modernism.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

. . . what Deconstruction is. Jacques Derrida's Of Grammatology was impenetrable, so I'm looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Internet Encyclopedia; . . .

Do not look in encyclopedias of philosophy. Do not read about Derrida. Read Derrida. Here's what is happening: Fuzzy sets happen when the law of contradiction is suspended. Also known as the law of the excluded middle. Kant said that the syllogisms are useless but we have to know them. The real world, however you might appear in it, does not believe in the law of contradiction and that makes Hegel, rather than the final word and final nail in the coffin of philosophy, a somewhat entertaining and popular lecturer and to be studied by historians.

But, repealing the law leaves one hovering in empty space and time without the motive power of reason, so Derrida built this fantastic system of talking all around the topic (including language itself that shall soon fall into disuse) without talking about the topic so we eventually know all about the topic. But, don't read this either; instead read Derrida wherever he appears.

[de Silentio]

If you want to understand Deconstruction in philosophy, perhaps you should look at deconstruction in the other arts, particularly literature.

From the little I've studied on the topic, it seems that it is heavily focused on the meaning of words and things. One saying from deconstrucitonists is that a sentence means something different to every person who reads it, thus no one will ever truly understand what is written. For example, if I write the sentence: "I love my wife", there is no possible way you can know what I mean when I use the word "love". You can have an idea, but it will never be the same meaning and you will never fully understand what I am trying to say.

However, spoken word is closer to the true meaning because of the little nuances in language. For example, if I can say the phrase "That bastard, I'm going to kill him" in a either a sarcastic way or a vengeful way and from the little intonations in my voice, you will be able to better able to understand what I mean. Now, I know that context in writing does fill in for the lack of intonation, but it still is not the same.

A consequence of this is that words themselves cannot have meaning, since everyone understands a word differently. And since language is the foundation for our knowledge, knowledge becomes relative.

Just some thoughts.

[Khethil]

Really nice thread, and memory-jogger. Thanks.

ON DECONSTRUCTION

Originally Posted by Victor Eremita

Ok, that's all fine and good, but how does this help us, philosophers and society in general?

I think we use this all the time (most profusely in philosophy although not so exclusively). As a matter of fact, many of the "Yea, but isn't <yada> really our way of <yada>..."-type responses I see here on the forum are a form of deconstruction as one person refutes/fleshes out a point made by another.

I must admit to some measure of egotistical-frustration to this, when someone uses this form of argument on what I've said; yet, I can't deny the value therein.

ORAL OR WRITTEN?

Interesting questions/points on this. I personally hadn't given it much thought; however, I think an oral response/statement will generally be more genuine while the written word is generally more perspicuous. Which medium is preferred, would necessarily depend on whether perpiscuity or unscripted honesty is preferred.

Thanks

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

If you want to understand Deconstruction in philosophy, perhaps you should look at deconstruction in the other arts, particularly literature. . .

Very dangerous since literary criticism has totally missed the point of Deconstructionism and is merely Hegelism. Hegeleanism. Watch the Aufhebung and there it is: Hegel.

[Robert Drane]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

A consequence of this is that words themselves cannot have meaning, since everyone understands a word differently. And since language is the foundation for our knowledge, knowledge becomes relative.

Not sure the consequence is that words "cannot" have meaning. This forum would be pointless if that were the case, and so would your argument. But they're not. You have a point. It's not that words are meaningless, but that they are polysemous - freighted with all sorts of meanings. The context of this forum does, in fact, make your post meaningful, and the meaning is generally agreed. On here, we all negotiate meaning, and all meaning is probably negotiated meaning. If your post suddenly bobbed up on a tennis forum, or a science forum, your words would be considered random and they'd create bewilderment - not a bad outcome, mind you!

[matty]

I think the original post is a very telling attempt to engage with deconstruction in that it seeks to establish what a deconstruction is or does when in fact, for Derrida at least, deconstruction is what happens to a "text" - that is to say, it cannot be forced into taking place. This is why Derrida was very uncomfortable about the way in which the term deconstruction was taken up by others and turned into a set of guidelines for analysis or critique (we might call this deconstructionism).

One way to understand this could well be through Simon Critchley's description (in The Ethics of Deconstruction) of the process of what he calls "clôtural reading", which is a double reading that seeks both to remain faithful to the source text while at the same time offering a radical engagement with its ideas (the word clôture refers to the so-called "closure of metaphysics" which Derrida sought to expose as the moment when seemingly transcendental philosophies revealed themselves for the duplicities they inevitably were). Critchley's approach also draws on Derrida's engagement with Emmanuel Levinas and his ethical philosophy of the Self-Other relationship (intersubjectivity), which in textual terms can be seen as the distinction between "the Saying and the Said" (hence the necessity of a double reading).

Consideration of différance would also be valuable here, but I am thinking about that in a different context so I will leave that aside for now on the proviso that I shall return to it later. However, just to say that the French term différance exists no more in French than might the transliteration differance in English (hence why Derrida said it is not a word or a concept as such), other than in reference to the double meaning (and again, double reading) of the French verb différer as both difference in space (difference) and time (deferral). The point being that it does not function in language in the same way as the distinction between whether and weather suggested by the original poster - i.e. it is not simply a question of determination.

Regarding presence, and specifically the relationship between speech and writing, it is commonly accepted that Derrida sought to undermine what he called "the metaphysics of presence" - the privileging of the present as the source of intended meaning. In a certain sense this is quite correct, in that Derrida emphasised that language is only capable of functioning on the basis of the traces of difference-deferral which he called differance. The essential point is that the "metaphysical" approach is inescapable because we always have to use language and therefore are "always already" destined to mis-speak. However, while this can be taken to suggest Derrida's privileging of writing over speech, nothing could be further from the truth (in fact, many of Derrida's "writings" began as oral disputations); rather, in Derrida's philosophy speech and writing are conjoined twins, thoroughly inseparable from one another without an act of extreme violence (hence his abiding interest in literature, which is a sort of middle ground between speech and writing).

So, to conclude briefly, Derrida's philosophy does undermine concepts such as truth and presence as they are traditionally understood within the philosophical canon, but not by dissolving them into a facile relativism. Indeed, Derrida counsels a philosophy of affirmation rather than negation, an openness to possibilities and not a closing down of boundaries.

Hope that helps!

[matty]

A very informative article which I stumbled upon today:

Deconstruction